THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 

THE  EPISCOPATE 

AND 

THE  PRIESTLY  OFFICE 

EY  * 

SAINT  THOMAS  AQUINAS  W 


% {Translation  of 
tTbe  ilftinor  Work  of  tbe  Saint  on 

THE  PERFECTION  OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE 


EDITED,  WITH  PREFATORY  NOTICE,  BY 

THE  VERY  REV.  FATHER  PROCTER,  S.T.M. 

EX-PROVINCIAL  OF  THE  ENGLISH  DOMINICANS 


ST.  LOUIS , MO. 

B.  HERDER 
17,  SOUTH  BROADWAY 
1902 

HUSTON  COLLEGE  UliK/kiit 


Bx  nsfo.  r 

.TS'k 


■ZViZiiZ  o&sZaZ 

F.  J.  Procter,  O.P.,  S.T.M. 
Imprimatur 

Herbertus  Cardinalis  Vaughan 
Archiepiscopus  Westmonasteriensis 


HILUs  MASS- 


PREFATORY  NOTICE 


Amongst  the  seventy-two  Opuscula , or  minor  works, 
of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  there  are  three  which  treat 
of  the  religious  life  and  calling.  The  first  of  these 
is  now  offered  to  the  English  reader.  The  two 
others  have  a special  interest  of  their  own.  They 
were  the  outcome  of  the  historic  controversy  on 
the  religious  orders,  raised,  in  St.  Thomas’s  day,  by 
a powerful  and  influential  anti-regular  party,  of 
which  William  of  St.  Amour  was  the  recognised  and 
indomitable  champion  and  leader.  These  two  Opus- 
cula will  appear  in  English  in  a subsequent  volume.1 
I venture  to  predict  that  they  will  not  fail  to  attract 
the  attention  of  many  readers  in  the  English-speak- 
ing world.  They  are  more  than  old  enough  to  have 
made  history,  yet  they  are  singularly  appropriate 
and  apposite  to-day — more  than  six  hundred  years 
after  they  were  written — wThen,  as  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  the  religious  orders  are  again  on  their  trial 
in  several  countries  in  Europe. 

1 Published  by  Messrs.  Sands  and  Co.  (12,  Burleigh  Street, 
Strand)  under  the  title  An  Apology  for  the  Religious  Orders. 

iii 


IV 


PEEFATOEY  NOTICE 


Touron  is  of  opinion  that  the  treatise  which 
follows  these  words  was  written  after  the  other  two, 
or,  at  least,  after  the  first  of  them.  Echard  is  of 
the  same  mind.  The  order  of  reproduction  is  trans- 
posed in  this  translation,  not  as  challenging  this 
view,  but  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  generality 
of  English  readers  will  be  more  interested  in  follow- 
ing the  controversy,  when  they  have  clearly  realised 
the  meaning  and  object  of  the  religious  life,  as  ex- 
plained in  the  following  pages. 

There  is  no  intrinsic  evidence  to  show  that  the 
treatise  on  “The  Perfection  of  the  Spiritual  Life” 
formed  part  of  the  controversy  to  which  I have 
alluded.1  It  was,  apparently,  written  in  the  days  of 
peace.  It  was,  evidently,  composed  before  the  other 
two,  or  at  least  before  one  of  them.  The  Saint  refers 
to  it  in  the  “ Contra  Impugnantes.”  “Although  we 
have  said  much  on  this  subject  in  another  of  our 
little  books  on  Perfection,  we  are  not  ashamed  to 
repeat  what  we  have  written”  (chapter  xi.).  The 
learned  Dominican  also  treats  of  the  Eeligious  Life 
in  his  Summa  Theologica  (2da  2dae  Quaest.  186  to 
189),  but  in  a more  concise  and  scholastic  manner 
than  in  the  following  pages. 

His  style  in  this  tract  is  more  discursive ; whilst, 
at  the  same  time,  he  retains  his  own  peculiarly 

1 In  the  Roman  edition  of  St.  Thomas’s  works  it  is  the  eighteenth 
Opusculum.  In  the  Parma  edition  it  is  the  seoond. 


PKEFATOKY  NOTICE 


v 


argumentative  form.  It  has  been  called  “a  con- 
structive treatise.”  It  is,  however,  analytic  as  well 
as  synthetic.  In  it,  as  the  reader  will  perceive,  the 
author,  without  unnecessarily  multiplying  his  pages, 
discusses  the  object  of  the  religious  life,  which  is 
the  attainment  of  the  love  of  God  in  a higher  degree 
than  is  compatible  with  the  cares  of  a life  spent  in 
the  world.  He  treats  of  the  helps  to  this  growth 
in  charity,  that  is  “ the  vows  of  perfection,”  as  they 
are  called,  by  which  the  religious  man  or  woman 
renounces  worldly  goods,  earthly  pleasures,  and  even 
his  or  her  own  will.  He  speaks  of  the  duties  which 
religious  owe  to  their  fellow  men.  Incidentally  St. 
Thomas  draws  a distinction  between  the  perfection 
which  is  expected  of  a religious,  and  the  perfection 
which  belongs  to  the  episcopal  state,  showing  that 
Bishops  are  in  a higher  state  of  perfection  than  are 
religious;  and  that,  yet,  for  reasons  given  in  chapter 
xix.,  the  one  state  may  be  ambitioned,  but  the  other 
must  not  be  coveted.  The  Saint,  also,  proves  in  the 
five  subsequent  chapters  that  although  priests  are 
engaged  in  a holier  work  than  are  contemplative 
religious,  and  although  individual  priests  may  be 
more  perfect  than  individual  monks  or  nuns,  yet 
the  priesthood  is  not  a state  of  perfection. 

This  short  treatise  on  their  life  will  be  of  spiritual 
help  to  religious  men  and  women,  whether  cloistered 
or  leading  an  active  life  in  the  world.  It  will  be  to 


VI 


PREFATORY  NOTICE 


them,  in  the  words  of  St.  Augustine’s  Rule,  “a 
mirror  ” into  which  they  can  look  and  see  whether 
they  are  falling  short  of  the  Ideal.  So  that,  if  they 
find  that  they  are  thoughtless  and  negligent,  they 
may  “ grieve  over  the  past ; they  may  be  guarded  in 
the  future;  they  may  pray  that  their  debt  be  can- 
celled, and  that  they  be  not  led  astray  by  tempta- 
tion.” If,  on  the  other  hand,  “ they  are  following 
that  which  is  written,  they  can  give  thanks  to  God, 
the  giver  of  all  good  things.” 

This  little  book  will,  I doubt  not,  be  of  spiritual 
help  to  Bishops  and  to  priests,  reminding  them  of  the 
sacredness  either  of  their  state  or  of  their  vocation. 

These  pages,  from  the  pen  of  “ the  Angel  of  the 
Schools,”  together  with  The  Apology  for  the  Religious 
Orders , which  may  be  regarded  as  the  sequel  of  the 
present  little  volume,  will,  also,  serve  as  a mine  of 
wealth  to  chaplains  of  nuns,  and  to  preachers  of 
retreats  to  religious.  It  is  a quarry,  from  which  they 
may,  one  and  all,  draw  the  stones  with  which  to 
build  up  the  edifice  of  the  spiritual  life  and  of 
religious  perfection — that  life  which  must  necessarily 
be  “built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone ; in  whom  all  the  building  framed 
together  groweth  unto  a holy  temple  in  the  Lord  ” 
(Eph.  ii.  20,  21). 


JOHN  PROCTER,  O.P. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Page 

Prefatory  Notice  . . . . . iii 

PART  I. 

THE  PERFECTION  OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE 

Page 

Prologue  . . . ...  3 

Chapter 

I.  That  the  perfection  of  the  spiritual  life  is  to  be  under- 
stood absolutely  ( simpliciter ) according  to  charity . 5 

II.  Perfection  is  understood  to  mean,  both  the  love  of 

God,  and  the  love  of  our  neighbour  . . . 8 

III.  Of  the  perfection  of  Divine  love  which  exists  in  God 

alone  . . . ...  10 

IV.  Of  the  perfection  of  Divine  love  which  exists  in  those 

who  have  attained  to  beatitude  . . .11 

V.  Of  the  perfection  of  Divine  love  which  is  necessary  to 

salvation  . . . . . 15 

VI.  The  perfection  of  Divine  love  which  is  a matter  of 

counsel  . . . . . 17 

YI I.  Of  the  first  means  of  perfection,  viz. : the  renunciation 

of  earthly  possessions  . . . . 19 

VIII.  Of  the  second  means  of  perfection  which  is  the  renun- 
ciation of  earthly  ties  and  of  matrimony  . . 26 

IX.  Aids  to  the  preservation  of  chastity  . . . 32 

X.  Of  the  third  means  of  perfection,  viz. : the  abnegation 

of  our  own  will  . . . . . 41 

XI.  The  three  means  of  perfection,  of  which  we  have 
hitherto  been  speaking,  belong  peculiarly  to  the 
religious  state  . . . . . 48 

XII.  Refutation  of  the  errors  of  those  who  presume  to  de- 
tract from  the  merit  of  obedience,  or  of  vows  . 53 

XIII.  The  'perfection  of  brotherly  love  which  is  necessary 

for  salvation  . . . . . 66 

vii 


Vlll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Chapter  Paoe 

XIV.  The  perfection  of  love  of  our  neighbour  considered 

as  a matter  of  counsel  . . . . 73 

XV.  What  is  required  to  constitute  the  state  of  perfec- 
tion . . . . . 84 

XVI.  The  state  of  perfection  is  a condition  befitting 

bishops  and  religious  . . . . 87 

XVII.  The  episcopal  office  is  more  sacred  than  is  the  re- 
ligious life  . . ...  92 

XVIII.  An  answer  to  certain  arguments  which  may  seem  to 
call  in  question  the  perfection  of  the  episcopal 
state  . . ...  96 

XIX.  The  episcopal  office,  although  a state  of  greater 
perfection  than  is  the  religious  life,  is,  never- 
theless, not  to  be  coveted  . . .104 

XX.  Arguments  used  by  certain  men  to  prove  that  parish 
priests  and  archdeacons  are  in  a state  of  higher 
perfection  than  are  religious.  Answers  to  these 
arguments  . . . . . Ill 

XXI.  Other  arguments  used  to  overthrow  the  conclusion 

at  which  we  have  arrived  . . .121 

XXII.  Showing  that  the  liability  to  suspension  does  not 

suffice  to  prove,  that  parish  priests  or  arch- 
deacons are  in  a state  of  perfection  . . 130 

XXIII.  An  answer  to  the  foregoing  arguments,  in  which  an 
attempt  was  made  to  show  that  archdeacons 
and  parish  priests  are  in  a higher  degree  of  per- 
fection than  are  religious  . . .133 

XXIV.  An  answer  to  the  argument,  whereby  certain  per- 
sons endeavour  to  prove  that  the  defect  of  a 
solemn  blessing  or  consecration  does  not  hinder 
archdeacons  or  parish  priests  from  being  in  a 
state  of  perfection  . . . . 148 

XXV.  An  answer  to  the  arguments  which  are  brought 

forward,  to  prove  that  the  power  of  an  arch- 
deacon or  parish  priest  to  resign  his  duties  is 
no  hindrance  to  his  being  in  a state  of  per- 
fection . . . . . 153 

XXVI.  Concerning  the  works  that  a religious  may  lawfully 

undertake  . , » . . 160 

165 


Index 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE,  Etc. 

OR 

THE  PERFECTION  OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE 
Opusculum  XVIII.  (Parma  Edition  II.) 


B 


THE  PERFECTION  OF  THE 
SPIRITUAL  LIFE 


PROLOGUE 

IN  WHICH  IS  SET  FORTH  THE  AUTHOR’S  INTENTION 
IN  UNDERTAKING  THIS  WORK 

As  certain  persons,  who  know  nothing  about 
perfection,  have,  nevertheless,  presumed  to  publish 
follies  concerning  this  state,  it  is  our  purpose  to 
draw  up  a treatise  on  perfection,  explaining  what 
is  meant  by  the  term  ; how  perfection  is  acquired ; 
what  is  the  state  of  perfection;1  and  what  are  the 
employments  befitting  those  who  embrace  this 
state. 

1 “The  state  of  perfection,”  i.e.  the  religious  state.  The  name 
is  suggested  by  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  young  man  : “ If 
thou  wilt  be  perfect , go,  sell  what  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor  ; 
and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven ; and  come,  follow  me  ” 
(Matt.  xix.  21).  St.  Thomas  also  applies  the  words  “state  of  per- 
fection ” to  the  Episcopal  life.  See  chapters  xvi.  et  seq. — Editor. 


CHAPTEE  I 

THAT  THE  PERFECTION  * OF  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE 
IS  TO  BE  UNDERSTOOD  ABSOLUTELY  ( simpliciter ) 
ACCORDING  TO  CHARITY 

At  the  outset  of  our  work  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  word  “ perfect  ” is  used  in  several  senses. 
A thing  may  be  absolutely  perfect  ( simpliciter ),  or  it 
may  be  perfect  relatively  ( secundum  quid).  That 
which  is  perfect  absolutely  attains  the  end  to  which, 
according  to  its  own  nature,  it  is  adapted.  That 
which  is  relatively  perfect  is  that  which  attains 
to  the  perfection  of  one  of  those  qualities  which 
are  concomitant  to  its  own  nature.  Thus,  an 
animal  is  said  to  be  perfect  absolutely  when  it 
attains  to  its  end  in  so  far  as  to  lack  nothing 
necessary  to  the  integrity  of  animal  life,  when, 
for  instance,  it  possesses  the  requisite  number  and 
the  proper  disposition  of  its  limbs,  and  the  faculties 
necessary  for  performing  the  operations  of  animal 
life.  An  animal  is,  on  the  other  hand,  perfect 
relatively,  if  it  be  perfect  in  any  attribute  con- 
comitant to  its  nature,  its  colour,  for  instance,  its 
odour,  etc. 


6 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


In  the  spiritual  life  a man  may  be  called  perfect 
absolutely,  i.e.  perfect  in  that  wherein  the  spiritual 
life  principally  consists.  He  may,  also,  be  perfect 
relatively,  i.e.  perfect  in  some  quality  which  is  a 
condition  of  the  spiritual  life.  Now,  the  spiritual 
life  consists,  principally,  in  charity.  For  he  that 
is  without  charity  is  spiritually  nought.  Hence 
St.  Paul  says  (1  Cor.  xiii.  2),  “ If  I should  have 
all  prophecy,  and  should  know  all  mysteries  and  all 
knowledge ; and  if  I should  have  all  .faith,  so  that 
I could  remove  mountains,  and  have  not  charity, 
I am  nothing.”  And  the  blessed  apostle  John 
declares,  that  the  whole  spiritual  life  consists  in 
love,  saying,  “We  know  that  we  have  passed  from 
death  to  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren.  He 
that  loveth  not  abideth  in  death”  (1  John  iii.  14). 
Therefore,  he  that  is  perfect  in  charity  is  said  to 
be  perfect  in  the  spiritual  life  absolutely.  But  he 
that  is  perfect  relatively  is  perfect  in  something 
incidental  to  the  spiritual  life.  This  is  evident 
from  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture. 

St.  Paul  considers  charity  as  the  chief  element 
in  perfection.  He  enumerates  several  virtues,  such 
as  mercy,  benignity,  and  humility,  and  then  con- 
cludes by  saying,  “ But  above  all  these  things,  have 
charity  which  is  the  bond  of  perfection  ” (Col.  iii.). 
Some  men  are  also  said  to  be  perfect  in  point  of 
understanding,  “ In  malice  be  children  and  in  sense 


CHARITY  THE  ESSENCE  OF  PERFECTION  7 


be  perfect,”  writes  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians 
(1  Epist.  xiv.  20).  Elsewhere  in  the  same  epistle,  he 
bids  them  “ be  perfect  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the 
same  judgment”  (1  Cor.  i.  10);  although,  as  has 
been  said,  a man  who  has  perfect  knowledge,  without 
charity,  must  be  judged  to  be  nothing.  Thus  also, 
a man  may  be  said  to  be  perfect  in  patience  which 
“ worketh  a perfect  work,”  as  St.  James  says,  perfect 
also  in  other  virtues.  There  is  nothing  surprising 
in  this  manner  of  speaking,  for  persons  may  be 
perfect  in  their  vices.  Thus  we  may  talk  of  a man 
being  “a  perfect  thief”  or  “a  perfect  robber.” 
Indeed,  this  mode  of  expression  is  used  in  Holy 
Scripture,  for  Isaias  says,  “ his  heart  (i.e.  the  heart 
of  the  fool)  will  work  iniquity  to  perfect  hypocrisy 
(xxxii.  6). 

1 The  words  in  the  Latin  are  “Cor  stulti  faciet  iniquitatem  ut 
perficicit  simulationem.”  In  the  Douay  version  the  translation 
given  is  “to  practise  hypocrisy.” — Editor. 


CHAPTER  II 


PERFECTION  IS  UNDERSTOOD  TO  MEAN,  BOTH  THE 
LOVE  OF  GOD,  AND  THE  LOVE  OF  OUR  NEIGHBOUR 

The  perfection  of  the  spiritual  life  may  be  under- 
stood as  signifying  principally  perfection,  as  it  regards 
charity.  Now  there  are  two  precepts  of  charity,  one 
pertaining  to  the  love  of  God;  the  other  referring 
to  the  love  of  our  neighbour.  These  two  precepts 
bear  a certain  order  to  each  other,  proportioned  to 
the  order  of  charity.  That  which  is  chiefly  to  be 
loved,  by  charity,  is  the  Supreme  Good,  which  makes 
us  happy,  that  is  to  say,  God.  In  the  next  place, 
we  are,  by  charity,  to  love  our  neighbour,  who  is,  by 
certain  social  bonds,  united  to  us,  either  by  the 
anticipation  of  beatitude,  or  in  the  enjoyment  of  it. 
Hence,  we  are  bound  in  charity  to  love  our  neigh- 
bour, in  order  that,  together  with  him,  we  may 
arrive  at  beatitude. 

Our  Lord  establishes  this  order  of  charity  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  (xxii.  37),  where  He  says, 
“ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  thy  whole 
heart  and  thy  whole  soul  and  thy  whole  mind. 
This  is  the  first  and  greatest  commandment;  and 

8 


CHARITY  THE  ESSENCE  OF  PERFECTION  9 


the  second  is  like  to  this  : Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself.”  Thus,  the  perfection  of  the 
spiritual  life  consists,  primarily  and  principally,  in 
the  love  of  God.  Hence  the  Lord,  speaking  to 
Abraham,  says,  “ I am  the  Almighty  God ; walk 
before  me  and  be  perfect”  (Gen.  xvii.  1).  We  walk 
before  God,  not  with  bodily  footsteps,  but  with  the 
affections  of  the  mind.  The  perfection  of  the 
spiritual  life  consists,  secondarily,  in  the  love  of  our 
neighbour.  Therefore  when  our  Lord  had  said, 
“ Love  your  enemies  ” (Matt.  v.  44),  and  had  added 
several  other  precepts  regarding  charity  to  our 
neighbour,  He  concluded  by  saying,  “Be  ye  there- 
fore perfect,  as  also  your  heavenly  Father  is 
perfect.” 


c 


CHAPTER  III 


OF  THE  PERFECTION  OF  DIVINE  LOVE  WHICH 
EXISTS  IN  GOD  ALONE 

In  each  of  the  two  divisions  of  charity  there  are 
many  degrees.  As  regards  the  love  of  God,  the 
first  and  supreme  degree  of  perfection  of  Divine 
love  belongs  to  God  alone.  This  is  the  case  on 
account  both  of  the  One  who  is  loved,  and  of  the 
one  who  loves.  It  is  the  case  on  account  of  the 
loved  one,  because  every  object  is  loved  in  pro- 
portion to  the  qualities  which  make  it  lovable.  It 
is  the  case  on  account  of  the  lover,  because  an 
object  is  loved  in  proportion  to  the  whole  capacity 
of  the  one  who  loves.  How,  as  every  object  is 
lovable  in  proportion  to  its  goodness,  the  goodness 
of  God,  which  is  infinite,  must  be  infinitely  lovable. 
But  no  creature  can  love  infinitely,  because  no 
finite  power  is  able  to  elicit  an  infinite  act.  There- 
fore, God  alone,  whose  power  of  loving  equals  His 
Goodness,  can  love  Himself  perfectly  in  the  first 
degree  of  perfection. 


CHAPTER  IY 

OF  THE  PERFECTION  OF  DIVINE  LOVE  WHICH 
EXISTS  IN  THOSE  WHO  HAVE  ATTAINED  TO 
BEATITUDE1 

The  only  mode  of  loving  God  perfectly  which  is 
possible  to  rational  creatures,  is  the  mode  which 
belongs  to  him  that  loves.  In  this  manner  a 
rational  creature  loves  God  with  all  the  complete- 
ness of  his  nature.  This  is  made  clear  in  the 
precept  of  Divine  love.  We  read  in  Deuteronomy 
(vi.  5),  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
thy  whole  heart,  and  with  thy  whole  soul  and  with 
all  thy  strength.”  St.  Luke  (x.  27)  adds,  “and 

1 “Attained  to  beatitude.”  The  Latin  word  “Comprehen- 
soribus,”  which  our  author  uses  in  this  title,  has  no  equivalent 
in  English.  It  is  a theological  term  which  is  applied  to  the 
blessed  in  heaven,  who  see  God  “face  to  face.”  St.  Thomas 
in  his  Summa  Theologica  (la  Par.  Quaest.  xii.  Art.  7)  defines  * 
Comprehendere , from  which  Comprehensor  is  derived,  by  saying, 
that  ‘ ‘ that  is  ‘ comprehended  ’ which  is  known  in  every  way 
perfectly.  That  only  is  known  perfectly  which  is  known  as 
far  as  it  is  knowable,”  in  such  sort,  that  there  is  nothing  about 
it,  either  absolutely  or  relatively,  which  is  not  known,  so  that 
again  the  mind  grasps  it  and  with  it  everything,  in  any  way,  in- 
volved in  the  cognition.  In  this  sense,  God  is  incomprehensible 
to  the  human  mind,  which  in  this  world  “sees  in  a dark 


11 


12 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


with  all  thy  mind  ” ; as  if  the  “ heart  ” regulated 
the  intention,  the  “ mind  ” the  thought,  the  “ soul  ” 
the  affections,  and  the  “ strength  ” the  activities. 
Eor  all  these  must  be  devoted  to  the  love  of  God. 
We  must  remember  that  this  precept  may  be  ful- 
filled in  a two-fold  manner.  When  anything  is 
perfect,  nothing  is  wanting  to  it.  Hence,  when  the 
love  of  God  is  complete  and  perfect,  He  is  loved 
with  the  whole  heart,  and  soul,  and  strength ; so 
that  there  is  nothing  within  us  which  is  not  actually 
turned  to  God. 

This  perfect  mode  of  love  is  not  possible  to  those 
who  are  on  the  way  to  Heaven,  but  only  to  those 
who  have  reached  their  goal.  Hence,  St.  Paul 
writing  to  the  Philippians  says  (chap.  iii.  12), 
“Not  as  though  I had  already  attained,  or  were 

manner,”  and  which,  being  finite,  cannot  exhaust  the  Infinite, 
cannot  know  God  infinitely,  even  when  it  sees  Him  “ face  to  face  ” 
in  heaven.  “God  most  perfectly  comprehends  Himself,  knowing 
Himself  as  far  as  He  can  be  known  ” (la  Quaest.  xiv.  Art.  3) ; but 
a created  intellect  knows  God  indeed,  but  does  not  “comprehend” 
Him,  i.e.  does  not  know  Him  as  perfectly  as  He  can  be  known, 
does  not  exhaust  His  perfections.  “0  most  mighty,  great,  and 
powerful,  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  Thy  name  ; great  in  counsel,  and 
incomprehensible  in  thought”  (Jer.  xxxii.  18,  19).  As  love  is 
proportioned  to  knowledge,  our  author  concludes  in  this  chapter,  as 
well  as  in  the  last,  that  we  cannot,  as  creatures,  love  God  with 
absolutely  perfect  love,  which  is  found  in  God  alone.  In  speaking 
of  the  created  intellect,  St.  Thomas  does  not  include  the  human 
intellect  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  by  virtue  of  the  hypostatic  union 
is  united  to  the  Godhead.  See  Summa,  3ia  Par.  Quaest.  ix.  Art.  2. 
— Editor. 


THE  PERFECTION  OF  LOVE 


13 


already  perfect;  but  I follow  after,  if  I may  by 
any  means  apprehend.”  He  writes  as  if  he  were 
hoping  for  perfection  when  he  should  have  reached 
his  goal,  and  when  he  should  have  received  the 
palm  of  the  blessed.  But  St.  Paul  does  not  use 
the  word  “ attaining  ” in  the  sense  of  entire  posses- 
sion or  perfect  comprehension,  for  God  in  this  sense 
is  incomprehensible  to  every  creature.  By  “ attain- 
ing ” he  means  reaching  the  end  which  he  has  been 
following  and  seeking.  In  Heaven,  the  understanding 
and  the  will  of  every  rational  creature  is  turned  to 
God ; since  it  is  in  the  fruition  of  the  Godhead  that 
the  beatitude  of  Heaven  consists.  For  beatitude 
exists  not  in  habit,  but  in  act.  And,  since  the 
rational  creature  will  in  Heaven  cleave  to  God, 
the  Supreme  Truth,  as  to  its  last  End,  all  its 
activities  will,  by  intention,  likewise  be  directed 
to  that  Last  End,  and  will  all  be  disposed  towards 
the  attainment  of  that  End.  Consequently,  in  that 
perfection  of  happiness,  the  rational  creature  will 
love  God  with  its  whole  heart;  since  its  whole 
intention  in  all  its  thoughts,  deeds,  and  affections, 
will  be  wholly  directed  to  Him.  It  will  love  God 
with  its  whole  mind,  for  its  mind  will  be  ever 
actually  fixed  on  Him,  beholding  Him,  and  seeing 
all  things  in  Him,  and  judging  of  all  things  accord- 
ing to  His  truth.  It  will  love  God  with  its  whole 
soul,  for  all  its  affection  will  be  uninterruptedly 


14  THE  EELIGIOUS  STATE 

fixed  on  Him,  and  for  His  sake  it  will  love  all 
things.  It  will  love  God  with  all  its  strength, 
since  His  love  will  be  the  motive  governing  all 
its  exterior  acts.  This,  then,  is  the  second  mode 
of  perfect  love,  and  this  love  is  the  portion  only 
of  the  blessed. 


CHAPTER  Y 


OF  THE  PERFECTION  OF  DIVINE  LOVE  WHICH 
IS  NECESSARY  TO  SALVATION 

There  is  another  way  in  which  we  love  God  with 
our  whole  heart  and  soul  and  strength.  We  so 
love  Him,  if  there  be  nothing  in  us  which  is 
wanting  to  divine  love,  that  is  to  say,  if  there  is 
nothing  which  we  do  not,  actually  or  habitually, 
refer  to  God.  We  are  given  a precept  concerning 
this  form  of  Divine  love. 

First,  we  are  taught  to  refer  everything  to  God 
as  to  our  End  by  the  words  of  the  Apostle  (1  Cor. 
x.  31),  “Whether  you  eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever 
else  you  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.”  We  fulfil 
this  precept  when  we  order  our  life  to  the  service 
of  God;  and  when,  in  consequence,  all  our  actions 
are,  virtually,  directed  to  Him,  save  those  that  are 
sinful,  and  which,  therefore,  withdraw  us  from  Him. 
While  we  act  thus,  we  love  God  with  our  whole 
heart. 

Secondly,  we  love  God  with  our  whole  mind, 
when  we  subject  our  understanding  to  Him,  believ- 
ing what  has  been  divinely  transmitted  to  us, 

15 


16 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


according  to  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (2  Cor.  x.  5), 
“ bringing  into  captivity  every  understanding  unto 
the  obedience  of  Christ.” 

Thirdly,  we  love  God  with  our  whole  soul,  when 
all  that  we  love  is  loved  in  God,  and  when  we  refer 
all  our  affections  to  the  love  of  Him.  St.  Paul 
expresses  this  love  in  the  following  words:  “For 
whether  we  be  transported  in  mind  it  is  to  God,  or 
whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for  you ; for  the  charity 
of  Christ  presseth  us  ” (2  Cor.  v.  13). 

Fourthly,  we  love  God  with  our  whole  strength, 
when  all  our  words  and  works  are  established  in 
divine  charity  according  to  the  precept  of  St.  Paul, 
“Let  all  your  things  be  done  in  charity”  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  14).  This,  then,  is  the  third  degree  of  perfec- 
tion of  divine  love,  to  which  all  are  bound  of 
necessity  and  by  precept.  But  the  second  degree 
is  not  possible  in  this  life,  save  to  one  who,  like 
Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is,  at  the  same  time,  both 
travelling  on  the  road  to  Heaven,  and  enjoying  the 
happiness  of  the  Blessed.1 

1 “Nisi  simul  fuerit  viator et  comprehensor.” — Editor. 


CHAPTER  YI 


THE  PERFECTION  OF  DIVINE  LOVE  WHICH  IS 
A MATTER  OF  COUNSEL 

When  St.  Paul  had  said  to  the  Philippians,  “Not 
as  though  I had  already  attained,  or  were  already 
perfect,”  he  continued,  “ but  I follow  after,  if  I may 
by  any  means  apprehend.”  Shortly  afterwards  he 
added,  “Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  are  perfect, 
be  thus  minded.”  From  these  words  it  is  plain 
that,  although  the  perfection  of  the  blessed  is  not 
possible  to  us  in  this  life,  we  ought,  nevertheless, 
to  endeavour,  as  far  as  we  can,  to  emulate  it.  Now, 
it  is  in  this  effort  that  consists  the  perfection  in  this 
life,  to  which  we  are  invited  by  the  counsels. 

It  is  abundantly  clear,  that  the  human  heart  is 
more  intensely  attracted  to  one  object,  in  pro- 
portion as  it  is  withdrawn  from  a multiplicity  of 
desires.  Therefore,  the  more  a man  is  delivered 
from  solicitude  concerning  temporal  matters,  the 
more  perfectly  he  will  be  enabled  to  love  God. 
Hence  St.  Augustine  says  (Lib.  lxxxiii,  Quaest.1) 

1 The  title  of  this  work,  so  often  quoted  by  St.  Thomas  in  the 
following  pages, is:  “De  Diversis  Quaestionibus  Octaginta  Tribus — 
liber  unus.” — Editoi:. 


D 


17 


18 


THE  BELIGIOUS  STATE 


that,  the  hope  of  gaining,  or  keeping,  material 
wealth,  is  the  poison  of  charity;  that,  as  charity 
increases,  cupidity  diminishes ; and  that,  when 
charity  becomes  perfect,  cupidity  ceases  to  exist. 
Hence,  all  the  counsels  which  call  man  to  perfec- 
tion tend  to  withdraw  his  affections  from  temporal 
objects ; so  that,  his  soul  is  enabled  the  more  freely 
to  turn  to  God  by  contemplating  Him,  loving  Him, 
and  fulfilling  His  will. 


CHAPTER  YII 


OF  THE  FIRST  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION,  VIZ.:  THE 
RENUNCIATION  OF  EARTHLY  POSSESSIONS 

The  first  among  the  material  possessions  to  be 
renounced  are  those  extrinsic  goods  that  we  call 
riches.  Our  Lord  counselled  us  to  relinquish  them 
when  He  said,  “ If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell 
all  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou 
shalt  have  treasure  in  Heaven;  and  come,  follow 
me  ” (Matt.  xix.  21). 

The  utility  of  this  counsel  is  evident.  First,  we 
have  the  evidence  of  a fact.  For,  when  the  young 
man  who  was  inquiring  about  perfection  heard  the 
words  of  Christ,  he  went  away  sad.  And  “ Behold,” 
says  St.  Jerome  in  his  commentary  on  St.  Matthew, 
“the  cause  of  this  sadness.  He  had  many  posses- 
sions, which,  like  thorns  and  briars,  choked  the 
seed  of  the  Lord’s  words.”  St.  Chrysostom,  writing 
on  the  same  passage,  says  that,  “they  who  possess 
but  little,  and  they  that  abound  in  riches,  do  not 
encounter  the  same  obstacles ; for  the  renunciation 
of  wealth  enkindles  a more  mighty  fire  and  causes 

19 


20 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


avarice  to  grow  greater.”  St.  Augustine  likewise 
says,  in  his  epistle  to  Paulinus  and  Therasia,  that, 
“ when  earthly  things  are  inordinately  loved,  those 
that  we  already  possess  fetter  us  more  closely  than 
those  that  we  desire;  for  why  did  this  young  man 
go  away  sad,  save  because  he  had  great  possessions  ? 
For,  it  is  one  thing  not  to  be  anxious  to  acquire 
the  things  that  we  lack,  but  quite  another  to  be 
ready  to  divest  ourselves  of  those  that  we  possess. 
For  the  things  that  are  not  ours  we  can  repudiate 
as  extrinsic  to  ourselves,  but  our  own  possessions 
are  dear  to  us  as  the  limbs  of  our  body.” 

The  utility  of  this  counsel  is  again  shown  us  by 
those  words  of  our  Lord,  “ A rich  man  shall  hardly 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  St.  Jerome 
tells  us  the  reason  of  this  difficulty.  “ It  is,”  he 
says,  “ because  it  is  hard  to  despise  the  riches  that 
we  possess.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  that  it  is  im- 
possible, but  that  it  is  hard , for  a rich  man  to  enter 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  For  difficulty  does  not 
mean  impossibility,  but  signifies  infrequency  of  per- 
formance.” And,  as  St.  Chrysostom  says  on  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  “ the  Lord  goes  further, 
proving  that  it  is  impossible,  ‘For,’  He  says,  ‘it  is 
easier  for  a camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle  than  for  a rich  man  to  enter  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.’  ” “ From  these  words,”  says  St.  Augustine 
(lib.  de  quaest.Evang .),  “the  disciples  understood  that 


FIRST  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  21 


all  they  that  covet  riches  are  included  in  the  number 
of  the  rich ; otherwise,  considering  how  small  is  the 
number  of  the  wealthy  in  comparison  to  the  vast 
multitude  of  the  poor,  they  would  not  have  asked, 

‘ Who  then  shall  be  saved  ? ’ ” 

From  these  two  utterances  of  Our  Lord  it  is 
clearly  evident,  that  he  that  possesses  riches,  will, 
with  difficulty,  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 
For,  as  He  says  elsewhere  (Matt.  xiii.  22),  “The 
cares  of  this  world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches 
choketh  up  the  Word,  and  it  becometh  fruitless.” 
In  truth,  it  is  impossible  for  those  to  enter  Heaven 
who  love  money  inordinately.  Far  easier  is  it  for  a 
camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a needle.  The 
latter  feat  would  indeed  be  impossible,  without 
violating  the  laws  of  nature.  But,  if  a covetous 
man  were  admitted  into  Heaven  it  would  be  con- 
trary to  Divine  Justice,  which  is  more  unfailing 
than  any  natural  law.  Hence,  we  see  the  reason- 
ableness of  Our  Lord’s  counsel;  for  a counsel  is 
given  concerning  that  which  is  most  useful,  accord- 
ing to  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (2  Cor.  viii.  10), 
“ Herein  I give  my  advice,  for  this  is  profitable  for 
you.” 

If  we  wish  to  attain  eternal  life,  it  is  more  advan- 
tageous for  us  to  renounce  our  possessions  than  to 
retain  them.  They  that  possess  wealth  will  hardly 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven ; the  reason 


22 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


being  that  it  is  difficult  to  prevent  our  affections 
from  being  attached  to  riches,  and  that  such  an 
attachment  makes  admission  into  Heaven  impos- 
sible. Therefore,  Our  Lord,  with  good  reason,  has 
counselled  the  renunciation  of  riches  as  our  most 
profitable  course. 

It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  St.  Matthew, 
St.  Bartholomew,  and  Zaccheus  were  rich ; never- 
theless, they  entered  into  Heaven.  St.  Jerome 
replies,  that,  “we  must  remember  that  they  had 
ceased  to  be  wealthy  at  the  time  of  their  admission 
to  Heaven.”  Abraham,  however,  never  lost  his 
wealth,  but,  as  we  read  in  Genesis,  died  a rich  man, 
bequeathing  his  property  to  his  sons.  How  then 
could  he  be  perfect  ? Nevertheless  God  said  to  him, 
“Be  perfect”  (Gen.  xvii.  1).  This  question  cannot 
be  answered  if  we  hold  that  it  is  the  mere  renuncia- 
tion of  wealth  which  constitutes  perfection.  For,  if 
such  were  the  case,  no  one  who  was  rich  could  be 
perfect.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  that  perfection  lies 
in  giving  up  what  we  possess,  but  He  mentions  this 
renunciation  of  our  possessions  as  a means  to  per- 
fection. We  see  this  by  His  own  words,  “If  thou 
wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  give 
to  the  poor,  and  follow  me.”  The  following  of 
Christ  constitutes  perfection ; the  sacrifice  of  riches 
is  a means  to  perfection. 

St.  Jerome,  commenting  on  the  Gospel  of  St. 


FIRST  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  23 


Matthew,  says,  “ As  if  to  show  that  merely  giving 
up  our  possessions  does  not  suffice  to  make  us 
perfect,  Peter  mentions  that  wherein  perfection 
consists,  when  he  says,  ‘We  have  followed  thee.’” 
Origen,  again,  says  on  the  same  passage,  “We  are 
not  to  gather  from  the  words,  ‘if  thou  wilt  be 
perfect  ’ that,  when  a man  has  given  his  goods  to 
the  poor,  he  becomes  perfect  at  once.  What  we  are 
to  understand  is,  that  from  that  time,  his  con- 
templation of  God  begins  to  attract  him  to  all 
virtues.”  A rich  man  may  be  perfect  if  his  affec- 
tions be  not  entangled  in  his  possessions,  but 
devoted  entirely  to  God.  In  this  way  Abraham 
was  perfect.  Although  he  possessed  wealth,  he  was 
detached  from  it.  The  words  of  the  Lord  spoken  to 
him,  “Walk  before  me  and  be  perfect,”  make  it 
clear,  that  the  perfection  of  the  Patriarch  was  to 
consist  in  walking  before  God,  and  in  loving  Him 
with  a love  so  perfect  that  it  reached  to  contempt 
of  himself,  and  of  all  that  belonged  to  him.  So 
perfect,  indeed,  was  his  love  of  God,  that  he  showed 
it  by  his  readiness  to  slay  his  son.  Wherefore  the 
Lord  said  to  him,  “ Because  thou  hast  done  this 
thing,  and  hast  not  spared  thy  only  begotten  son  for 
my  sake,  I will  bless  thee”  (Gen.  xxii.  16). 

If  anyone  should  still  argue,  that  the  counsel  of 
Our  Lord  concerning  the  renunciation  of  possessions 
is  futile,  because  Abraham,  though  a rich  man,  was 


24 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


perfect,  we  will  refer  him  for  an  answer  to  what  has 
been  already  said.  Our  Lord,  we  repeat,  did  not 
mean,  by  this  counsel,  that  rich  men  cannot  be 
perfect,  or  cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven ; but  He  meant  that  they  cannot  do  so 
easily.  The  virtue  of  Abraham  was  very  great ; 
for,  although  possessed  of  great  wealth,  his  heart 
was  detached  from  riches.  The  virtue,  likewise,  of 
Samson  was  eminent,  for,  armed  only  with  the  jaw- 
bone of  an  ass,  he  slew  many  of  his  enemies ; never- 
theless the  instruction  which  he  gave  to  the  soldier 
to  take  up  arms  in  combat  with  his  foes,  was  not 
unprofitable.  Neither,  then,  is  it  useless  to  counsel 
those  that  seek  perfection  to  part  with  their  earthly 
goods,  although  Abraham  was  perfect  with  all  his 
wealth. 

We  must  not  draw  conclusions  from  wonderful 
deeds ; for  the  weak  among  us  are  more  capable  of 
wondering  at  and  praising  such  deeds,  than  of 
imitating  them.  Hence  we  read  in  Eccles.  xxxi.  8, 
“ Blessed  is  the  rich  man  that  is  found  without 
blemish;  and  that  hath  not  gone  after  gold,  nor 
put  his  trust  in  money  nor  in  treasures.”  This 
passage  proves  that  the  rich  man  who  does  not  sin 
by  covetousness,  nor  by  pride,  must,  indeed,  be  a 
man  of  tried  virtue,  with  a heart  adhering  closely, 
by  perfect  charity,  to  God.  St.  Paul  bids  Timothy 
to  “ charge  the  rich  of  this  world  not  to  be  high- 


FIRST  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  25 


minded,  nor  to  trust  in  the  uncertainty  of  riches” 
(1  Tim.  vi.  17).  The  greater  the  blessedness  and 
the  virtue  of  the  wealthy  who  obey  this  behest,  the 
smaller  is  their  number.  Thus  Ecclesiasticus  (xxxi.) 
speaking  of  a virtuous  and  yet  a wealthy  man,  says : 
“ Who  is  he,  and  we  will  praise  him  ? for  he  hath 
done  wonderful  things  in  his  life.”  For  truly,  he 
who,  while  abounding  in  riches  has  not  set  his 
heart  upon  his  treasures,  has  indeed  done  wonder- 
ful things,  and  without  the  shadow  of  a doubt 
has  proved  himself  perfect.  The  same  chapter  of 
Ecclesiasticus  continues,  “ Who  hath  been  tried 
thereby,”  that  is  to  say,  who  has  been  tested  as  to 
whether  he  can  live  a sinless  life  in  the  midst  of 
wealth,  “and  made  perfect.”  This  is  as  much  as 
to  say : “ such  a man  is  indeed  rare,  and  his  virtue 
will  merit  for  him  eternal  glory.”  This  test  of 
Ecclesiasticus  bears  out  the  saying  of  Our  Lord, 
that  a rich  man  shall  hardly  enter  into  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven. 

This,  then,  is  the  first  means  of  attaining  per- 
fection, to  wit  the  renunciation  of  riches,  and  the 
profession  of  poverty,  from  a desire  of  following 
Christ. 


E 


CHAPTER  VIII 


OF  THE  SECOND  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  WHICH  IS 
THE  RENUNCIATION  OF  EARTHLY  TIES  AND  OF 
MATRIMONY 

In  order  the  more  clearly  to  understand  this  second 
means  of  perfection,  we  should  reflect  on  the  words 
of  St.  Augustine  which  occur  in  xii.  de  Trinit . : “ The 
less  a man  loves  his  private  possessions,  the  more 
closely  will  he  cleave  to  God.”  Hence,  according  to 
the  order  of  the  things  which  a man  sacrifices  for 
the  love  of  God,  will  be  the  order  of  those  things 
which  will  enable  him  to  adhere  perfectly  to  God. 

The  things  to  he  first  given  up,  are  those  least 
closely  united  to  ourselves.  Therefore,  the  renuncia- 
tion of  material  possessions,  which  are  extrinsic  to 
our  nature,  must  be  our  first  step  on  the  road  to 
perfection.  The  next  objects  to  be  sacrificed  will 
be  those  which  are  united  to  our  nature,  by  a 
certain  communion  and  necessary  affinity.  Hence, 
Our  Lord  says,  “ If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate 
not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children, 
and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also, 
he  cannot  be  my  disciple  ” (Luke  xiv.  26). 

26 


SECOND  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  27 


But,  as  St.  Gregory  says,  “ It  is  permissible  to 
inquire  how  we  can  be  commanded  to  hate  our 
parents  and  kinsfolk,  when  we  are  bidden  to  love 
even  our  enemies  ? If,  however,  we  carefully  consider 
this  precept,  we  shall  be  able  to  obey  it  by  means 
of  discretion.  For,  when  we  refuse  to  listen  to 
one  who,  savouring  earthly  things,  suggests  to  us  to 
do  what  is  wrong,  we  at  the  same  time  love  him  and 
hate  him.  Thus  we  must  bear  this  discreet  hatred 
towards  our  kinsfolk,  loving  in  them  what  they  are 
in  themselves,  and  hating  them  when  they  hinder 
our  progress  towards  God.  For,  whosoever  desires 
eternal  life  must,  for  the  love  of  God,  be  indepen- 
dent of  father  and  mother,  of  wife,  children,  and 
relations,  yea,  detached  from  self,  in  order  that  he 
may  the  better  know  God,  for  whose  sake  he  loses 
sight  of  every  other.  For  it  is  but  too  clear,  that 
earthly  affections  warp  the  mind,  and  blunt  its 
keenness.” 

Now  amongst  all  relationships  the  conjugal  tie 
does,  more  than  any  other,  engross  men’s  hearts. 
So  that  our  first  parent  said  (Gen.  ii.  24) : “A  man 
shall  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to 
his  wife.”  Hence,  they  who  are  aiming  at  perfec- 
tion, must,  above  all  things,  avoid  the  bond  of 
marriage,  which,  in  a pre-eminent  degree,  entangles 
men  in  earthly  concerns.  This  is  the  reason  which 
St.  Paul  gives  for  his  counsel  concerning  continence. 


28 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


“ He  that  is  without  a wife,  is  solicitous  for  the 
things  that  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  please 
God.  But  he  that  is  with  a wife,  is  solicitous  for 
the  things  of  the  world,  how  he  may  please  his 
wife”  (1  Cor.  vii.  32). 

Therefore,  the  second  means  whereby  a man  may 
be  more  free  to  devote  himself  to  God,  and  to  cleave 
more  perfectly  to  Him,  is  by  the  observance  of 
perpetual  chastity.  But  continence  possesses  the 
further  advantage  of  affording  a peculiar  facility 
to  the  acquirement  of  perfection.  For,  the  soul 
is  hindered  in  its  free  access  to  God,  not  only  by 
the  love  of  exterior  things,  but  much  more  by  force 
of  interior  passions.  And,  amongst  these  passions, 
the  lust  of  the  flesh  does,  beyond  all  others,  over- 
power reason.  Hence  in  lib.  1 Soliloquiorum , 
St.  Augustine  says,  “I  know  nothing  which  doth 
more  cast  a manly  soul  down  from  the  tower  of 
its  strength,  than  do  the  caresses  of  a woman,  and 
the  physical  contact  essential  to  marriage.”  Thus, 
continence  is  most  necessary  to  perfection.  It  is 
the  way  pointed  out  by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vii.  25), 
“ Concerning  virgins  I have  no  commandment  of  the 
Lord,  but  I give  counsel,  as  having  obtained  mercy 
of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.” 

The  advantage  of  virginity  is  also  shown  in 
St.  Matthew  (xix.  12).  When  the  disciples  said  to 
Our  Lord,  “ If  the  case  of  a man  with  his  wife  be  so, 


SECOND  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  29 


it  is  not  expedient  to  marry”  He  answered,  “All 
men  take  not  this  word  but  they  to  whom  it  is 
given.”  By  these  words  wTe  see  the  difficulty  in- 
volved in  continence,  and  the  inadequacy  of  human 
virtue  to  lead  such  a life  without  the  grace  of  God. 
We  read  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (viii.  21),  “I  knew 
that  I could  not  otherwise  be  continent  except  God 
gave  it ; and  this  also  was  a point  of  wisdom  to 
know  whose  gift  it  was.”  This  saying  is  also  borne 
out  by  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vii.  7),  “I 
would  that  all  men  were  even  as  myself”  (i.e.  a 
virgin),  “ but  everyone  hath  his  proper  gift  from 
God ; one  after  this  manner,  and  another  after  that.” 
In  these  words  he  distinctly  asserts  that  conti- 
nence is  a gift  of  God. 

But,  lest  anyone  should,  on  the  other  hand,  fail 
to  use  his  own  endeavour  to  obtain  this  gift,  Our 
Lord  exhorts  all  men  to  it.  He  first  gives  an  illus- 
tration, saying,  “ There  are  eunuchs  who  have  made 
themselves  eunuchs  ” ; “ not,”  as  St.  Chrysostom 
explains,  “ by  mutilation,  hut  by  resisting  evil 
thoughts.”  Then  Christ  goes  on  to  invite  all  men 
to  follow  this  example,  for  the  sake  of  its  reward. 
“ There  are  some,”  He  continues,  “ who  have  made 
themselves  eunuchs  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 
The  Book  of  Wisdom  also  says  (iv.  2),  “The  chaste 
generation  .Hiumpheth,  crowned  for  ever,  winning 
the  reward  of  undefiled  conflicts.”  Finally,  Our 


30 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


Lord  exhorts  men  to  continence,  by  the  words,  “ He 
that  can  take,  let  him  take  it.”  “ This,”  says  St. 
Jerome,  “is  the  voice  of  the  Lord  encouraging  his 
soldiers  to  win  the  prize  of  chastity.  It  is  as  if  He 
said : he  that  can  fight,  let  him  fight  and  conquer.” 

If  anyone  should  object  to  us  the  example  of 
Abraham,  and  of  other  just  men  of  old,  who  were 
perfect  without  refraining  from  matrimony,  we  will 
answer  them  in  the  words  written  by  St.  Augustine 
in  his  book,  de  bono  conjugali.  “ The  continence  that 
is  a virtue  is  that  of  the  mind,  not  of  the  body.  And 
virtue  is  sometimes  revealed  in  deeds,  and  sometimes 
lies  disguised  as  a habit.  The  patience  of  John  who 
did  not  suffer  martyrdom  was  equal  in  merit  to  that 
of  Peter  who  was  slain;  and  Abraham  who  begat 
sons,  was  equal  in  continence  to  the  virgin  John. 
The  marriage  of  the  one  and  the  celibacy  of  the 
other  fought,  each  in  their  season,  for  Christ. 
Therefore,  any  one  of  the  faithful  who  observes 
continence  may  say, “I  am  certainly  no  better  than 
Abraham;  but  the  chastity  of  celibacy  is  superior 
to  the  chastity  of  married  life.  Abraham  practised 
the  one  actually,  the  other  habitually.  For  he  lived 
chastely  as  a husband,  and  could  have  lived  con- 
tinently had  he  been  unmarried.  The  latter  state, 
however,  did  not  befit  the  time  at  which  he  lived. 
It  is  easier  for  me  not  to  marry  at  all,  (although 
Abraham  married)  than  to  live  such  a married  life 


SECOND  MEANS  OF  PEEFECTION  31 


as  he  lived.  Therefore,  am  I better  than  they,  who 
could  not,  by  continence  of  heart,  do  what  I do ; but 
I am  not  better  than  they,  who,  on  account  of  the 
different  time  at  which  they  lived,  did  not  what 
I do.  Had  it  been  fitting,  they,  in  their  time,  would 
have  accomplished  far  better  than  I,  that  which 
I now  do ; but  I,  even  were  it  now  required,  could 
not  do  what  they  achieved.” 

This  conclusion  of  St.  Augustine  agrees  with 
what  has  already  been  said  about  poverty.  For 
Abraham  had  arrived  at  such  perfection  that  his 
heart  never  wavered  in  love  to  God  on  account 
either  of  temporal  possessions  or  of  wedded  life. 
But  if  another  man  who  has  not  reached  this  height 
of  virtue,  strives  to  attain  perfection,  while  retaining 
riches  and  engaging  in  matrimony,  he  will  soon  be 
made  aware  of  his  error  in  presuming  to  treat  Our 
Lord’s  words  as  of  small  account. 


CHAPTEE  IX 

AIDS  TO  THE  PRESERVATION  OF  CHASTITY 

Since  chastity  is  so  difficult  a virtue  that,  in  Our 
Lord’s  words,  not  all  men  “take  it,”  but  those  only 
“ to  whom  it  is  given,”  it  is  necessary  for  those  who 
desire  to  live  a life  of  continence,  so  to  conduct 
themselves  as  to  avoid  all  that  might  prove  an 
obstacle  in  the  prosecution  of  their  design.  Now 
there  are  three  principal  hindrances  to  continence. 
The  first  arises  from  the  body.  The  second  from 
the  mind.  The  third  from  external  circumstances, 
whether  they  be  of  persons  or  of  things. 

The  body  is  an  obstacle  to  continence.  As 
St.  Paul  says,  “ The  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
Spirit  ” (Gal.  v.  17),  and  “ the  works  of  the  flesh 
are  fornication,  uncleanness,  unchastity  and  the 
like.”  Concupiscence  is  that  law  of  the  flesh,  of 
which,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  St.  Paul  says, 
“ I see  another  law  in  my  members  fighting  against 
the  law  of  my  mind”  (Eom.  vii.  23).  Now  the 
more  the  flesh  is  pampered,  by  superabundance  of 
food,  and  by  effeminacy  of  life,  the  more  will  its 

32 


AIDS  TO  CHASTITY 


33 


concupiscence  increase.  For,  as  St.  Jerome  says, 
“A  man  heated  with  wine  will  quickly  give  the 
rein  to  lust.”  The  book  of  Proverbs  warns  us 
against  wine  as  “ a luxurious  thing  ” (Prov.  xx.  1). 
Job,  again,  tells  us  that  Behemoth  (by  whom  Satan 
is  signified)  “sleepeth  under  the  shadow,  in  the 
covert  of  the  reed  and  in  moist  places”  (chap.  xl.  16). 
St.  Gregory  (33  Moral ) thus  interprets  this  passage. 
“ Moist  places,”  he  says,  “betoken  voluptuous  works. 
We  do  not  slip  on  dry  ground;  but,  we  have  no 
sure  foothold  on  slippery  soil.  Hence,  those  men 
pursue  the  journey  of  this  present  life  in  moist 
places,  who  cannot  hold  themselves  upright  in 
justice.”  He,  then,  who  desires  to  undertake  a life 
of  continence,  must  chastise  his  flesh,  by  abstention 
from  pleasure,  and  by  fasts,  vigils,  and  such  like 
exercises. 

St.  Paul  sets  before  us  his  own  conduct  as  an 
example  in  this  respect,  “ Every  one  that  striveth  for 
the  mastery,  refraineth  himself  from  all  things.  . . . 
I chastise  my  body  and  bring  it  into  subjection,  lest, 
perhaps,  when  I have  preached  to  others,  I myself 
should  become  a castaway”  (1  Cor.  ix.  25).  What 
the  Apostle  practised  in  deed,  he  taught  in  word. 
In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xiii.  14),  after  his 
warning  against  “ chambering  and  impurities,”  he 
concludes,  “ make  not  provision  for  the  flesh  in  its 
concupiscences.”  He  rightly  lays  stress  upon  the 
F 


34 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


concupiscences  of  the  flesh,  i.e.  its  desire  for  pleasure ; 
for  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to  make  provision  for  what 
is  necessary  for  our  body,  and  St.  Paul  himself  says 
(Eph.  v.  29),  “No  man  ever  hated  his  own  flesh,  but 
nourisheth  it  and  cherisheth  it.” 

An  obstacle  to  continence  arises  also  from  the 
mind,  if  we  dwell  on  unchaste  thoughts.  The  Lord 
says  by  His  prophet,  “Take  away  the  evil  of  your 
devices  from  my  eyes”1  (Isa.  i.  16).  For,  evil 
thoughts  often  lead  to  evil  deeds.  Hence  the 
Prophet  Michseas  says  (ii.  1),  “ Woe  to  you  that 
devise  that  which  is  unprofitable,” 2 and  he  im- 
mediately continues,  “ and  work  evil  in  your  beds.” 
Amongst  all  evil  thoughts,  those  which  most  power- 
fully incline  unto  sin,  are  thoughts  concerning  carnal 
gratification.  Philosophers  assign  two  reasons  for 
this  fact.  First,  they  say,  that  as  concupiscence  is 
innate  in  man,  and  grows  with  him  from  youth 
upwards,  he  is  easily  carried  away  by  it,  when  his 
imagination  sets  it  before  him.  Hence  Aristotle 
says  (2  Ethics),  that  “we  cannot  easily  judge  of 
pleasure,  unless  we  enjoy  it.”  The  second  reason 
is  given  by  the  same  philosopher  (3  Ethics), 
“ Pleasure  is  more  voluntary  in  particular  cases 
than  in  general.”  It  is  clear  that  by  dallying  with 

1 In  the  Latin  Version,  “ malum  cogitationum  vestrarum  (evil  of 
your  thoughts).” — Editor. 

2 In  Latin,  “ Vae  qui  cogitatis  inutile.” — Editor. 


AIDS  TO  CHASTITY 


35 


a thought  we  descend  to  particulars ; hence,  by 
daily  thoughts  we  are  incited  to  lust.  On  this 
account  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vi.  18)  warns  us  to  “Fly 
fornication  for,  as  the  Gloss  says,  “ It  is  permissible 
to  await  a conflict  with  other  vices ; but  this  one 
must  be  shunned;  for  in  no  other  means  can  it  be 
overcome.” 

But,  as  there  are  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
chastity,  there  are  also  many  remedies  against  such 
obstacles.  The  first  and  chief  remedy  is  to  keep 
the  mind  busied  in  prayer  and  in  the  contemplation 
of  Divine  things.  This  lesson  is  taught  us  in  St. 
Paul’s  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (v.  18),  wherein  he 
says,  “Be  ye  not  drunk  with  wine  wherein  is  luxury; 
but,  be  ye  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  to 
yourselves  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  can- 
ticles” (which  pertain  to  contemplation),  “singing  and 
making  melody  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord”  (whereby 
prayer  is  implied).  Hence  in  Isaias  (xlviii.  9),  the 
Lord  says,  “ For  by  my  praise  I will  bridle  thee,  lest 
thou  shouldst  perish.”  For  the  divine  praise  is,  as 
it  were,  a bridle  on  the  soul,  checking  it  from  sin. 

The  second  remedy  against  lust  is  the  study  of 
the  Scriptures.  “ Love  the  study  of  Holy  Writ,” 
says  St.  Jerome  to  the  monk  Busticus,  “and  thou 
wilt  not  love  the  vices  of  the  flesh.”  And  St.  Paul 
in  his  exhortation  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  12)  says, 
“ Be  thou  an  example  of  the  faithful  in  word, 


36 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


in  conversation,  in  charity,  in  faith,  in  chastity,” 
immediately  adding,  “ Till  I come,  attend  unto 
reading.” 

The  third  preservative  against  concupiscence,  is 
to  occupy  the  mind  with  good  thoughts.  St. 
Chrysostom,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew,  says  that,  “physical  mutilation  is 
not  such  a curb  to  temptation,  and  such  a source 
of  peace  to  the  mind,  as  is  a habit  of  bridling  the 
thoughts.”  St.  Paul  also  says  to  the  Philippians 
(iv.  8),  “For  the  rest,  brethren,  whatsoever  things 
are  true,  whatsoever  modest,  whatsoever  just,  what- 
soever holy,  whatsoever  lovely,  whatsoever  of  good 
fame,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  if  any  praise  of 
discipline,  think  on  these  things.” 

The  fourth  help  to  chastity  is  to  shun  idleness, 
and  to  engage  in  bodily  toil.  We  read  in  the  book 
of  Ecclesiasticus  (xxxiii.  29),  “ Idleness  hath  taught 
much  evil.”  Idleness  is  pre-eminently  an  incentive 
to  sins  of  the  flesh.  Hence  Ezechiel  says  (xvi.  49), 
“ Behold,  this  was  the  iniquity  of  Sodom  thy  sister, 
pride,  fulness  of  bread,  abundance,  and  idleness.” 
St.  Jerome  likewise  writes,  in  his  letter  to  the 
monk  Rusticus,  “Do  some  work,  that  so  the  devil 
may  always  find  thee  employed.” 

A fifth  remedy  for  concupiscence  lies  in  certain 
kinds  of  mental  disquietude.  St.  Jerome  relates,  in 
the  epistle  quoted  above,  that,  in  a congregation  of 


AIDS  TO  CHASTITY 


37 


caenobites  there  dwelt  a young  man  who  could  not, 
by  means  of  fasting  or  any  laborious  work,  free 
himself  from  temptations  of  the  flesh.  The  superior 
of  the  monastery,  seeing  that  the  youth  was  on  the 
point  of  yielding,  adopted  the  following  means  for 
his  relief.  He  commanded  one  of  the  most  discreet 
among  the  fathers  to  constantly  upbraid  the  young 
man,  to  load  him  with  insults  and  reproach,  and, 
after  treating  him  thus,  to  lodge  complaints  against 
him  with  the  Superior.  Witnesses  were  called,  who 
all  took  the  senior  father’s  part.  This  treatment 
was  continued  for  a year.  At  the  end  of  that  time, 
the  superior  questioned  the  youth  about  his  old 
train  of  thought.  “Father,”  was  the  reply,  “I  am 
scarcely  permitted  to  live.  How,  in  such  straits, 
shall  I be  inclined  to  sin  ? ” 

A great  obstacle  to  continence  arises  from  extrinsic 
circumstances,  such  as  constant  intercourse  with 
women.  We  read  in  Ecclesiasticus  (ix.  9),  “Many 
have  perished  by  the  beauty  of  a woman,  and  hereby 
lust  is  enkindled  as  a fire  ...  for  her  conversa- 
tion burneth  as  fire.”  And,  in  the  same  chapter, 
the  following  safeguard  is  proposed  against  these 
dangers:  “Look  not  upon  a woman  that  hath  a 
mind  for  many,  lest  thou  fall  into  her  snares.  Use 
not  much  the  company  of  her  that  is  a dancer,  and 
hearken  not  to  her  lest  thou  perish  by  the  force  of 
her  charms.”  Again  (chapter  xlii.  12),  “Behold  not 


38 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


everybody’s  beauty ; and  tarry  not  among  women. 
For  from  garments  cometh  a moth,  and  from  a 
woman  the  iniquity  of  a man.”  St.  Jerome,  in  his 
book  against  Yigilantius,  writes  that  a monk,  know- 
ing his  own  frailty,  and  how  fragile  is  the  vessel 
which  he  carries,  will  fear  to  slip  or  stumble,  lest 
he  fall  and  be  broken.  Hence,  he  will  chiefly  avoid 
gazing  at  women,  and  especially  at  young  ones,  lest 
he  be  caught  by  the  eyes  of  a harlot,  and  lest  beauty 
of  form  lead  him  on  to  unlawful  embraces. 

Abbot  Moses,  in  his  conferences  to  the  fathers,  says 
that,  in  order  to  preserve  purity  of  heart,  “ we  ought 
to  seek  solitude  and  to  practise  fasting,  watching, 
and  bodily  labour : to  wear  scant  clothing ; and  to 
attend  to  reading ; in  order,  by  these  means,  to  be 
able  to  keep  our  heart  uncontaminated  by  passion, 
and  to  ascend  to  a high  degree  of  charity.”  It  is 
for  this  reason,  that  such  exercises  are  practised  in 
the  religious  life.  Perfection  does  not  consist  in 
them ; but  they  are,  so  to  speak,  instruments  where- 
by perfection  is  acquired.  Abbot  Moses,  therefore, 
continues,  “Fasting,  vigils,  hunger,  meditation  on 
the  scriptures,  nakedness,  and  the  privation  of  all 
possessions,  are  not  themselves  perfection ; but  they 
are  the  instruments  of  perfection.  The  end  of  dis- 
cipline does  not  lie  in  them ; but,  by  their  means 
we  arrive  at  the  end.” 

But,  perchance,  someone  may  object,  that  it  is 


AIDS  TO  CHASTITY 


39 


possible  to  acquire  perfection  without  fasting  or 
vigils  or  the  like,  for  we  read  that  “ the  Son  of  Man 
came  eating  and  drinking”  (Matt.  xi.  19),  nor  did 
His  disciples  fast,  as  did  the  Pharisees,  and  the 
followers  of  St.  John.  To  this  argument  we  find 
in  the  Gloss  the  following  answer,  “John  drank  no 
wine  nor  strong  drink ; for  abstinence  increases 
merit,  though  nature  has  no  power  to  do  so.  But, 
wherefore  should  the  Lord,  to  Whom  it  belongs  to 
forgive  sin,  turn  away  from  sinners  who  feast,  when 
he  is  able  to  make  them  more  righteous  than  they 
who  fast  ? ” The  disciples  and  Christ  had  no  need 
to  fast ; for  the  presence  of  the  Bridegroom  gave 
them  more  strength  than  the  followers  of  John 
gained  by  fasting.  Hence  Our  Lord  says  (Matt.  ix. 
15),  “ But  the  days  will  come  when  the  Bridegroom 
shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then  they  shall 
fast.”  St.  Chrysostom  makes  the  following  comment 
on  these  words,  “ Fasting  is  not  naturally  grievous, 
save  to  those  whose  weakness  is  indisposed  to  it. 
They  who  desire  to  contemplate  heavenly  wisdom 
rejoice  in  fasting. 

“ Now,  as  when  Our  Lord  spoke  the  words  we  have 
just  quoted,  the  disciples  were  still  weak  in  virtue, 
it  was  not  the  fitting  season  to  bring  sadness  upon 
them.  It  was  more  meet  to  wait  until  they  were 
strengthened  in  faith.  They  were  dispensed  from 
fasting,  not  by  reason  of  their  gluttony,  but  by  a 


40 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


certain  privilege.”  St.  Paul,  however,  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  (2  Ep.  vi.  3),  expressly  shows  how 
fasting  enables  men  to  avoid  sin,  and  to  acquire 
perfection.  He  says,  “Giving  no  offence  to  any 
man,  that  our  ministry  be  not  blamed ; but  in  all 
things  let  us  exhibit  ourselves  as  the  ministers  of 
God,  in  much  patience,  in  tribulation,  in  necessities, 
in  distresses,  in  stripes,  in  prisons,  in  seditions,  in 
labours,  in  watchings,  in  fastings,  in  chastity.” 


CHAPTER  X 

OF  THE  THIRD  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION,  NAMELY, 
THE  ABNEGATION  OF  OUR  OWN  WILL 

It  is  not  only  necessary  for  the  perfection  of 
charity  that  a man  should  sacrifice  his  exterior 
possessions  : he  must  also,  in  a certain  sense,  re- 
linquish himself.  Dionysius,  in  Chapter  IV.  de 
Divinis  Nominibus , says  that,  “ divine  love  causes  a 
man  to  be  out  of  himself,  meaning  thereby,  that 
this  love  suffers  him  no  longer  to  belong  to  himself 
but  to  Him  whom  he  loves.”  St.  Paul,  writing  to 
the  Galatians  (ii.  20),  illustrates  this  state  by  his 
own  example,  saying,  “ I live,  now  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me,”  as  if  he  did  not  count  his  life  as  his 
own,  but  as  belonging  to  Christ,  and  as  if  he 
spurned  all  that  he  possessed,  in  order  to  cleave  to 
Him.  He  further  shows  that  this  state  reaches 
perfection  in  certain  souls ; for  he  says  to  the 
Colossians  (iii.  3),  “ Eor  you  are  dead,  and  your 
life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.”  Again,  he  exhorts 
others  to  the  same  sublimity  of  love,  in  his  second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (v.  15),  “And  Christ 
G 41 


42 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


died  for  all ; that  they  also  who  live,  may  not  now 
live  to  themselves,  but  unto  Him  who  died  for 
them,  and  rose  again.”  Therefore,  when  Our  Lord 
had  said  (Luke  xiv.  26),  “ If  any  man  come  to  me, 
and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,”  He  added 
something  greater  than  all  these,  saying,  “ yea,  and 
his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.”  He 
teaches  the  same  thing  in  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew  (xvi.  24),  when  He  says,  “ If  any  man  will 
come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself  and  take  up 
his  cross  and  follow  Me.” 

This  practice  of  salutary  self-abnegation,  and 
charitable  self-hatred,  is,  in  part,  necessary  for  all 
men  in  order  to  salvation,  and  is,  partly,  a point  of 
perfection.  As  we  have  already  seen  from  the 
words  of  Dionysius  quoted  above,  it  is  in  the  nature 
of  divine  love  that  he  who  loves  should  belong,  not 
to  himself,  but,  to  the  one  beloved.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  that  self-abnegation  and  self-hatred  be 
proportionate  to  the  degree  of  divine  love  existing 
in  an  individual  soul.  It  is  essential  to  salvation 
that  a man  should  love  God  to  such  a degree,  as 
to  make  Him  his  end,  and  to  do  nothing  which  he 
believes  to  be  opposed  to  the  Divine  love.  Con- 
sequently, self-hatred  and  self-denial  are  necessary 
for  salvation.  Hence  St.  Gregory  says,  in  his 
Homily,  “We  relinquish  and  deny  ourselves  when 


THIKD  MEANS  OF  PEBFECTION  43 


we  avoid  what  we  were  wont  (through  the  old  man 
dwelling  in  us)  to  be,  and  when  we  strive  after  that 
to  which  (by  the  new  man)  we  are  called.”  In 
another  Homily  he,  likewise,  says,  “We  hate  our 
own  life  when  we  do  not  condescend  to  carnal 
desires,  but  resist  the  appetites  and  pleasures  of 
the  flesh.” 

But,  in  order  to  attain  perfection,  we  must 
further,  for  the  love  of  God,  sacrifice  what  we 
might  lawfully  use,  in  order,  thus  to  be  more  free 
to  devote  ourselves  to  Him.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  self-hatred,  and  self-denial,  pertain  to  perfec- 
tion. We  see  that  Our  Lord  speaks  of  them  as  if 
they  belonged  to  it.  For,  just  as  in  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  (xix.  21)  He  says,  “ If  thou  wilt  be 
perfect,  go,  sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the 
poor,”  but  does  not  lay  any  necessity  on  us  to  do  so, 
leaving  it  to  our  own  will,  so  He  likewise  says 
(Matt.  xvi.  24),  “ If  any  man  will  come  after  Me, 
let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and 
follow  Me.”  St.  Chrysostom  thus  explains  these 
words,  “ Christ  does  not  make  his  saying  com- 
pulsory ; He  does  not  say,  ‘whether  you  like  it  or  no, 
you  must  bear  these  things.’  ” In  the  same  manner, 
when  He  says  : “ If  any  man  will  come  after  Me 
and  hate  not  his  father”  etc.  (Luke  xiv.  28),  He 
immediately  asks,  “ Which  of  you  having  a mind 
to  build  a tower,  doth  not  first  sit  down,  and  reckon 


44 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


the  charges  that  are  necessary,  whether  he  have 
wherewithal  to  finish  it  ? ” St.  Gregory  in  his 
Homily  thus  expounds  these  words,  “ The  precepts 
which  Christ  gives  are  sublime,  and,  therefore,  the 
comparison  between  them  and  the  building  of  a 
high  tower  shortly  follows  them.”  And  he  says 
again,  “ That  young  man  could  not  have  had  where- 
withal to  finish  his  tower  who,  when  he  heard  the 
counsel  to  leave  all  things,  went  away  sad.”  We 
may  hence  understand,  that  these  words  of  our  Lord 
refer,  in  a certain  manner,  to  a counsel  of  perfection. 

The  martyrs  carried  out  this  counsel  of  perfection 
most  perfectly.  Of  them  St.  Augustine  says  (in 
his  sermon  Be  martyribus),  that  “ none  sacrifice 
so  much  as  they  that  sacrifice  themselves.”  The 
martyrs  of  Christ,  denying  themselves,  did,  in  a 
certain  manner,  hate  their  lives,  for  the  love  of 
Christ.  St.  Chrysostom,  again,  says,  writing  on  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  “ He  that  denies  another, 
be  it  his  brother,  or  his  servant,  or  whomsoever 
it  may  be,  will  not  assist  him  if  he  see  him  suffering 
from  the  scourge  or  any  other  torture.  And  we, 
in  like  manner,  ought  to  have  so  little  regard  for 
our  body,  that,  if  men  should  scourge,  or  in  any 
other  way  maltreat,  us,  we  ought  not  to  spare 
ourselves.” 

Our  Lord  would  not  have  us  to  think  that  we  are 
to  deny  ourselves,  only  so  far  as  to  endure  insults 


THIED  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  45 


and  hard  words.  He  shows  us  that  we  are  to  deny 
ourselves  unto  death,  even  unto  the  shameful  death 
of  the  cross.  For  He  says : “ Let  him  take  up  his 
cross  and  follow  Me.”  We,  therefore,  say  that  the 
martyrs  did  a most  perfect  work ; for  they  re- 
nounced, for  the  love  of  God,  life  itself,  which 
others  hold  so  dear,  that,  for  its  sake,  they  are 
content  to  part  with  all  temporal  goods,  and  are 
willing  to  purchase  it  by  any  sacrifice  whatsoever. 
For  a man  will  prefer  to  lose  friends  and  wealth, 
and  to  suffer  sickness,  or  even  slavery,  rather  than 
to  be  deprived  of  life.  Conquerors  will  grant 
to  their  defeated  foes  the  privilege  of  life,  in  order 
that  they  may  keep  them  subject  to  them  in 
slavery.  Satan  said  to  the  Lord  (Job  ii.  4),  “ Skin 
for  skin,  and  all  that  a man  hath  he  will  give  for 
life,”  i.e.  to  preserve  his  body. 

Now,  the  more  dearly  a thing  is  loved  according 
to  nature,  the  more  perfect  it  is  to  despise  it,  for  the 
sake  of  Christ.  Nothing  is  dearer  to  any  man  than 
the  freedom  of  his  will,  whereby  he  is  lord  of  others, 
can  use  what  he  pleases,  can  enjoy  what  he  wills, 
and  is  master  of  his  own  actions.  Just,  therefore, 
as  a person  who  relinquishes  his  wealth,  and  leaves 
those  to  whom  he  is  bound  by  natural  ties,  denies 
these  things  and  persons ; so,  he  who  renounces  his 
own  will,  which  makes  him  master,  does  truly  deny 
himself.  Nothing  is  so  repugnant  to  human  nature 


46 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


as  slavery  ; and,  therefore,  there  is  no  greater 
sacrifice  (except  that  of  life),  which  one  man  can 
make  for  another,  than  to  give  himself  up  to 
bondage  for  the  sake  of  that  other.  Hence,  the 
younger  Tobias  said  to  the  angel  (Tobias  ix.  2)> 
“If  I should  give  myself  to  be  thy  servant,  I should 
not  make  a worthy  return  for  thy  care.” 

Some  men  deprive  themselves,  for  the  love  of 
God,  of  some  particular  use  of  their  free  will, 
binding  themselves  by  vow,  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  some 
specific  thing.  A vow  imposes  a certain  obligation 
on  him  that  makes  it ; so  that,  for  the  future,  he 
is  not  at  liberty  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  what  was 
formerly  permissible  to  him ; for  he  is  bound  to 
accomplish  his  vow.  Thus,  we  read  in  Ps.  lxv.  13, 
“ I will  pay  thee  my  vows  which  my  lips  have 
uttered,”  and  again  (Eccles.  v.  3),  “ If  thou  hast 
vowed  anything  to  God,  defer  not  to  pay  it ; for  an 
unfaithful  and  foolish  promise  displeaseth  him.” 

Others  there  are,  however,  who  make  a complete 
sacrifice  of  their  own  will,  for  the  love  of  God, 
submitting  themselves  to  another  by  the  vow  of 
obedience,  of  which  virtue  Christ  has  given  us  a 
sublime  example.  For,  as  we  read  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Eomans  (v.  19),  “As  by  the  disobedience  of 
one  man,  many  were  made  sinners ; so  also  by  the 
obedience  of  one,  many  shall  be  made  just.”  Now 
this  obedience  consists  in  the  abnegation  of  our 


THIRD  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  47 


own  will.  Hence,  Our  Lord  said,  “ Father,  if  it  be 
possible,  let  this  chalice  pass  from  Me : nevertheless 
not  as  I will  but  as  Thou  wilt  ” (Matt.  xxvi.  39). 
Again  He  said  (John  vi.  38),  “I  came  down  from 
Heaven,  not  to  do  my  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
Him  that  sent  Me.”  By  these  words  He  shows  us, 
that,  as  He  renounced  His  own  will,  submitting 
it  to  the  Divine  will,  so  we  ought  wholly  to  subject 
our  will  to  God,  and  to  those  whom  He  has  set 
over  us  as  His  ministers.  To  quote  the  words  of 
St.  Paul,  “ obey  your  prelates  and  be  subject  to 
them  ” (ILeb.  xiii.  17). 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  THREE  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION,  OF  WHICH 
WE  HAVE  HITHERTO  BEEN  SPEAKING,  BELONG, 
PECULIARLY,  TO  THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE1 

We  find  the  three  ways  to  perfection  in  religious 
life,  embodied  in  the  three  vows  of  perpetual 
poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience.  Religious  follow 
the  first  road  to  perfection  by  the  vow  of  poverty, 
whereby  they  renounce  all  property.  By  the  vow 
of  chastity,  whereby  they  renounce  marriage,  they 
enter  on  the  second  road  to  perfection.  They  set 
forth  on  the  third  road  to  perfection,  by  the  vow 
of  obedience,  whereby  they  sacrifice  their  own  will. 
Now  these  three  vows  well  beseem  the  religious 
life.  For,  as  St.  Augustine  says  (lib.  x.  de  Civitate 
Dei),  “The  word  religion  means,  not  any  sort  of 

1 As  the  words  “religion,”  “religious  state ’’and  “religious” 
are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  these  pages,  it  will  be  well  for  the 
reader  to  remember  that  they  are  not  used  by  the  author  in  the 
general  acceptation  of  the  terms.  “Religion”  and  “Religious 
state  ” are  synonymous  with  the  life  and  profession  of  those  who 
belong  to  religious  orders.  In  like  manner,  the  word  “ Religious” 
is  meant  to  express,  not  merely  a good  or  pious  man,  but  a 
member  of  a religious  order. — Editor. 

48 


THREE  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  49 


worship,  but  the  worship  of  God.”  And  Tully  says, 
in  his  Rhetorica , that  “ religion  is  a virtue,  paying 
worship  and  reverence  to  a certain  higher  nature 
which  men  term  the  Divine  nature.” 

Now  the  worship  which  is  due  to  God  alone, 
consists  in  the  offering  of  sacrifice.  Such  sacrifices 
may  consist  in  external  things,  when  they  are  given 
for  the  love  of  God.  Thus,  St.  Paul  says,  (Hebrews 
xiii.  3),  “ Do  not  forget  to  do  good  and  to  impart ; 
for  by  such  sacrifices  God’s  favour  is  obtained.” 
We  also  offer  to  God  the  sacrifice  of  our  own  bodies, 
when,  as  St.  Paul  says  (Gal.  v.  24),  “ we  crucify  the 
flesh  with  its  vices  and  concupiscences,”  or,  when 
we  obey  his  exhortation  to  the  Romans  (xii.  1), 
“ Present  your  bodies  a living  sacrifice,  holy, 
pleasing,  unto  God.”  There  is,  again,  a third  and 
most  agreeable  sacrifice  to  God,  spoken  of  in  the 
50th  Psalm  (v.  19),  “ a sacrifice  to  God  is  an  afflicted 
spirit.” 

The  difference,  says  St.  Gregory,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Ezecliiel , between  a sacrifice  and  a 
holocaust  is,  that,  whereas  every  holocaust  is  a 
sacrifice,  every  sacrifice  is  not  a holocaust.  In 
a sacrifice  a part  of  the  victim  was  immolated ; 
but  in  a holocaust  the  entire  offering  was  consumed. 
“ When,  therefore,  a man  vows  one  thing  to  God, 
and  does  not  vow  another,  he  offers  a sacrifice. 
When,  however,  he  dedicates  to  the  Almighty  all 


n 


50 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


that  he  has,  all  that  he  takes  pleasure  in,  and  his 
entire  life,  he  is  offering  a holocaust.”  This  he  does, 
most  perfectly,  by  the  three  religious  vows.  Hence, 
it  is  clear  that  the  name  of  religious  is  strictly 
applied,  according  to  the  very  meaning  of  the  word, 
to  those  who  pay  their  vows  as  a holocaust  to  God. 

According  to  the  Levitical  law  the  offering  of 
sacrifice  was  ordained  for  the  atonement  of  sin. 
Again,  in  Psalm  lv.,  immediately  after  the  verse, 
“ the  things  you  say  in  your  hearts,  be  sorry  for 
them  upon  your  beds,”  we  read,  “ offer  up  the  sacri- 
fice of  justice,”  that  is  to  say  (as  the  Gloss  explains), 
“perform  works  of  justice  after  your  lamentations 
of  penitence.”  Since,  then,  a holocaust  is  a perfect 
sacrifice,  a man  who  makes  the  religious  vows, 
(thereby  offering,  of  his  own  will,  a holocaust  to 
God),  makes  perfect  satisfaction  for  his  sins.  Hence 
we  see,  that  the  religious  life,  is  not  only  the  perfec- 
tion of  charity,  but  likewise  the  perfection  of  peni- 
tence, since,  however  heinous  may  be  the  sins 
committed  by  a man,  he  cannot  be  enjoined,  as 
a penance  for  them,  to  go  into  religion ; for  the 
religious  state  transcends  all  satisfaction.  We  see 
(in  33,  quaest.  II.  cap.  Admonere),1  that  Astulplus, 

1 As  this  form  of  reference  is  of  frequent  recurrence  in  the 
following  pages,  and  in  the  Arology  for  the  Religious  Orders , 
which  may  be  considered  as  the  sequel  to  this  book,  it  may 
be  well  to  state,  once  for  all,  that  the  quotations  thus 
cited  are  from  the  collection  of  Decrees  of  Councils  and  Papal 


THREE  MEANS  OF  PERFECTION  51 


who  had  killed  his  wife,  was  advised  to  go  into  a 
monastery  as  the  easiest  and  best  course  to  pursue ; 
for,  if  he  remained  in  the  world,  a very  severe 
penance  would  be  imposed  upon  him. 

The  vow  which,  of  all  the  three  religious  vows, 
belongs  most  peculiarly  to  the  religious  life,  is  that 
of  obedience.  This  is  clear  for  several  reasons. 


Bulls  which  form  the  corpus  juris  canonici,  or  Canon 
Law,  of  the  Church.  The  compilation  from  which  St.  Thomas 
generally,  though  not  invariably,  quotes  is  that  made  by  the 
Benedictine  monk  Gratian,  a.d.  1151,  and  known  as  the  “ Decre- 
tum  Gratiani.”  The  reference  is  given  in  an  abbreviated  form. 
If  it  were  quoted  in  full,  the  above  would  read  thus:  “Causae 
33‘*‘,  Quaestionis  2^,  Caput  (or  Canon)  Admonere.” 
Admonere  is  the  first  word  of  the  chapter.  The  first  and  third 
parts  of  the  decretum  are  divided  into  Distinctiones  et  Capita. 
The  second  part  is  divided  into  Causae , under  each  causa  there 
being  a number  of  quaestiones.  This  will  account  for  the  different 
forms  of  citation  from  Gratian’s  decretum  which  are  found  in 
St.  Thomas’s  works.  The  Causae  in  the  above  quotation  points  at 
once  to  the  second  part  of  the  decree.  Occasionally,  the  word 
extra  appears  before  the  reference,  to  show  that  the  passage  quoted 
is  from  an  authority  outside  the  decree. 

The  “Decretum  Gratiani ” with  subsequent  decrees,  including 
several  issued  by  Pope  Gregory  IX. , were,  at  the  instance  of  that 
pontiff,  collated  by  the  Dominican  Canonist  St.  Raymund  of 
Pennafort,  and  were  authoritatively  published  in  the  year  1234, 
under  the  title,  “ Decretals  of  Gregory  IX.” 

Other  decrees  were  afterwards  added  to  the  “Corpus  Juris,” 
such  as  “the  Decretals  of  Boniface  VIII.,”  sometimes  called 
“liber  sextus  ” or  the  sixth  book  of  Decretals  (a.d,  1298) ; “ The 
Clementines,”  drawn  up  by  Pope  Clement  V.  (a.d.  1316) ; the 
“ Extravagantes  ” of  John  xxii.  ; the  “ Extravagantes  Com- 
munes”; and -many  others  emanating  from  different  councils 
and  popes  down  to  our  own  time. — Editor. 


52 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


First,  because,  by  obedience  man  sacrifices  to 
God  his  own  will ; by  chastity,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  offers  his  body,  and  by  poverty  his  external 
possessions.  Now,  since  the  body  is  worth  more 
than  material  goods  the  vow  of  chastity  is  superior 
in  merit  to  that  of  poverty,  but  the  vow  of  obedience 
is  of  more  value  than  either  of  the  other  two. 
Secondly,  because  it  is  by  his  own  will  that  a man 
makes  use  either  of  his  body  or  his  goods : therefore, 
he  who  sacrifices  his  own  will,  sacrifices  everything 
else  that  he  has.  Again,  the  vow  of  obedience  is 
more  universal  than  is  that  of  either  poverty  or 
chastity,  and  hence  it  includes  them  both.  This 
is  the  reason  why  Samuel  preferred  obedience  to  all 
other  offerings  and  sacrifices,  saying,  “ Obedience 
is  better  than  sacrifices”  (1  Kings  xv.  22). 


CHAPTER  XII 


REFUTATION  OF  THE  ERRORS  OF  THOSE  WHO  PRE- 
SUME TO  DETRACT  FROM  THE  MERIT  OF 
OBEDIENCE,  OR  OF  VOWS 

Satan,  in  his  jealousy  of  human  perfection,  has 
raised  up  several  foolish  and  misleading  men,  who, 
by  their  teaching,  have  shown  themselves  hostile 
to  the  different  modes  of  perfection  of  which  we 
have  been  speaking.  Yigilantius  attacked  the  first 
counsel  of  perfection.  St.  Jerome  thus  combats  his 
objections  to  it : “ Some  men  hold  that  they  act  more 
virtuously  who  keep  the  use  of  their  fortune,  and 
divide  the  fruit  of  their  possessions  piecemeal 
among  the  poor,  than  they  do  who  sell  their 
goods,  and,  at  once,  give  all  they  possess  to  the 
poor.  The  fallacy  of  this  assertion  is  proved  not 
by  my  words  but  by  those  of  the  Lord  Himself, 
‘ If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  all  that  thou  hast 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  come  follow  me.’  Christ 
is  here  speaking  to  one  who  desires  to  be  perfect, 
and  who,  with  the  Apostles,  leaves  father,  ship,  and 
net.  The  man  who  is  praised  for  retaining  the  U6e 


54 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


of  his  possessions,  is  in  the  second  or  third  degree 
of  perfection ; and  we  know  that  the  first  degree 

is  preferable  to  either  the  second  or  the  third.” 

Hence,  in  order  to  exclude  error  on  this  point,  we 
find  in  the  book,  De  ecclesiasticis  dogmatibus  the 
following  words : “ It  is  good  to  distribute  one’s 
goods  prudently  among  the  poor;  but  it  is  better 
if  it  be  done  with  the  intention  of  following  the 

Lord,  to  give  them  all  away  at  once,  and,  in  our 

dealings  with  Christ,  to  be  free  from  all  earthly 
solicitude.” 

Jovinian  argued  against  the  second  counsel  of 
perfection,  and  declared  that  marriage  was  equal 
in  merit  to  virginity.  St.  J erome  refuted  his 
opinions,  in  the  book  which  he  wrote  against  him. 
St.  Augustine,  likewise,  thus  speaks  of  his  error, 
in  his  book  Retractationum:  “The  heresy  of  Jovinian 
asserted  that  the  merit  of  consecrated  virgins  was 
equalled  by  conjugal  chastity.  Hence,  it  is  said 
that  in  Rome,  certain  nuns  who  had  not  hitherto 
been  suspected  of  immorality,  contracted  marriage. 
Our  holy  mother  the  Church  has  always  stoutly 
resisted  this  error.  In  the  book  De  ecclesiasticis 
dogmatibus  we  find  the  following  declaration  : “ It 
is  not  Christian  but  Jovinian  to  set  virginity  on 
a level  with  matrimony,  or  to  deny  an  increase 
of  merit  to  those  who,  for  the  sake  of  mortifying 
the  flesh,  refrain  from  wine  or  flesh  meat.” 


MEKIT  OF  VOWS  55 

But  the  devil  is  not  content  with  these  old 
devices.  Even  in  our  own  days  he  has  stirred 
up  some  men  to  declaim  against  the  vow  of  obedi- 
ence and  all  other  vowts,  and  to  preach  that  good 
works  are  more  meritorious  when  performed  without 
obedience  or  vow,  than  when  executed  under  such 
obligations.  Others,  again,  say  that  a vow  made  to 
enter  religion  may,  without  danger  to  salvation,  be 
broken,  and  they  strive  to  confirm  their  opinion  by 
frivolous  and  empty  arguments.  For  they  contend 
that  an  act  is  meritorious  in  proportion  as  it  is 
voluntary,  and  that,  if  such  an  act  be  less  voluntary 
in  proportion  as  it  is  more  necessary,  good  works 
done  at  a man’s  pleasure,  without  the  constraint 
of  obedience  or  vow  of  any  kind,  are  worth  more 
than  such  as  are  performed  under  the  obligation 
of  a vow,  either  of  obedience  or  of  some  other 
nature.  They  quote  in  support  of  their  teaching 
the  words  of  Prosper  ( Booh  II.  Dc  vita  contempla- 
tiva),  “ We  ought  to  fast  and  abstain,  not  as  though 
forced  by  necessity,  lest  by  acting  reluctantly  we 
should  be  called  unwilling  rather  than  devout.” 
They  might  also  bring  forward  the  words  of 
St.  Paul  (2  Cor.  ix.  7),  “Every  one  as  he  hath 
determined  in  his  heart,  not  with  sadness  or  of 
necessity ; for  God  loveth  a cheerful  giver.” 

We  must,  now  show  the  fallacy  of  these  argu- 
ments, and  confute  this  foolish  reasoning.  First, 


56 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


in  order  to  manifest  the  error  of  these  arguments 
we  will  quote  the  Gloss  on  the  verse  of  Ps.  lxxv.  12, 
“Vow  ye  and  pay  to  the  Lord  your  God.”  “We 
must  observe,”  says  the  Gloss,  “ that  some  vows 
made  to  God  are  common  to  all  men,  and  are 
necessary  to  salvation : such  are  our  Baptismal 
promises  and  the  like,  which  we  should  be  bound 
to  keep,  even  if  we  had  not  made  them.  The 
verse,  ‘Vow  ye  and  pay,’  alludes  to  such  vows  as 
these,  and  is  addressed  to  all  men.  There  are  also 
other  vows  made  by  individuals,  such  as  chastity, 
virginity,  and  the  like.  The  Psalmist  invites  us, 
but  does  not  command  us,  to  make  such  vows  as 
these,  and  to  pay  them  when  we  have  made  them. 
For  the  emission  of  a vow  is  a decision  of  the 
will ; but  the  payment  of  such  a vow  is  a decided 
necessity.” 

Hence  a vow  is,  in  one  sense,  a matter  partly  of 
counsel,  and,  in  another  sense,  a matter  of  precept. 
But,  from  whichever  point  of  view  we  consider 
it,  we  shall  see  plainly  that  good  works  performed 
under  vow,  are  more  meritorious  than  those 
executed  without  a vow.  For,  it  is  clear,  that, 
in  all  that  is  necessary  for  salvation,  all  men  are 
bound  by  the  precept  of  God ; neither  would  it 
be  right  to  think  that  God  would  give  a com- 
mand without  a purpose.  For,  as  St.  Paul  says 
(1  Tim.  i.  5),  “ Now  the  end  of  the  Commandment 


MERIT  OF  VOWS 


57 


is  charity.”  In  vain,  then,  would  God  have  given 
a commandment  concerning  the  performance  of  any- 
thing, if  the  execution  of  such  a thing  had  not 
tended  more  towards  the  increase  of  charity  than 
its  omission  would  have  done.  Now  we  are  not 
only  bidden  by  precept  to  believe,  and  forbidden 
to  steal,  but,  further,  we  are  commanded  to  make 
a vow  to  believe  and  to  abstain  from  theft.  There- 
fore, believing  on  account  of  our  vow,  and  abstention 
from  theft  on  the  same  account,  tend  more  to 
augment  charity  than  would  be  the  case  if  we 
had  no  vow.  Again,  the  more  anything  increases 
charity,  the  more  it  is  praiseworthy  and  meritorious. 
Hence  it  is  more  praiseworthy  and  meritorious  to 
perform  any  work  under  vow,  than  without  such 
an  obligation.  Once  more,  the  counsel  is  given  to 
us  not  only  to  preserve  virginity  or  chastity,  but 
(as  the  Gloss  points  out)  to  make  a vow  to  do 
so.  But  since,  as  we  have  said,  a counsel  is  only 
given  concerning  that  which  is  the  greater  good,  it 
must  be  better  to  observe  chastity  under  a vow  than 
without  one. 

The  same  argument  holds  good  concerning  the 
other  counsels.  Now,  amongst  other  good  works 
virginity  meets  with  special  commendation.  Our 
Lord  speaking  of  it  says,  “ He  that  can  take,  let 
him  take  ” (Matt.  xix.  12).  It  is,  however,  the 
vow  of  virginity  which  renders  that  state  so 
I 


58 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


praiseworthy.  St.  Augustine  says,  in  his  book, 
De  virginitate , “ Virginity  is  honourable,  not  because 
it  is  virginity,  but  because  it  is  consecrated  to  God, 
and  because  it  vows  to  Him,  and  preserves  for  Him, 
the  continence  of  piety.”  And,  again,  he  says, 
“We  do  not  praise  virgins  because  they  are  virgins, 
but  because  they  are  consecrated  to  God  by  the 
holy  continence  of  virginity.”  Hence  we  see,  that 
the  fact  of  their  being  performed  under  a vow, 
renders  good  works  the  more  meritorious. 

Again,  every  finite  good  acquires  additional  value 
by  bearing  a promise  of  some  other  good.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  promise  of  good  is  in  itself 
a good.  Hence,  when  one  man  makes  a promise 
to  another,  he  is  considered  to  confer  some  advan- 
tage upon  him ; and  he  to  whom  the  promise  is 
made  returns  thanks.  Now  a vow,  is  a promise 
made  to  God,  as  we  see  from  Ecclesiastes  (v.  3), 
“If  thou  hast  vowed  anything  to  God,  defer  not 
to  pay  it ; for  an  unfaithful  and  foolish  promise 
displeaseth  him.”  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  make 
a vow  and  to  perform  it,  than  simply  to  execute 
a good  work  without  being  bound  thereto  by  vow. 

Again,  the  more  one  person  gives  to  another,  the 
more  he  deserves  from  that  other.  Now,  he  that 
does  a good  work  without  a vow,  offers  to  God  only 
that  single  act  which  he  performs  for  love  of  him : 
he,  on  the  contrary,  who  not  only  accomplishes  a 


MEBIT  OF  VOWS 


59 


good  work,  but  also  makes  a vow  to  perform  it, 
gives  to  God  not  only  that  which  he  does,  but  also 
the  power  whereby  he  does  it.  For  he  puts  it  out 
of  his  power  not  to  do  such  a good  work  ; although, 
before  making  his  vow,  he  might  legitimately  have 
omitted  it.  Hence  he  merits  far  more  from  God 
who  acts  under  vow,  than  he  who  is  not  under  any 
obligation. 

Once  more,  the  merit  of  a good  work  is  increased 
in  proportion  as  the  will  is  confirmed  in  good,  just  as 
the  heinousness  of  sin  is  aggravated  in  proportion 
to  the  obstinate  malice  of  the  will.  How  it  is 
evident,  that  he  who  makes  a vow,  confirms  his  will 
to  accomplish  that  which  he  promises;  and  that 
when  he  accomplishes  the  good  work  which  he  has 
vowed  to  do,  its  consummation  proceeds  from  the 
strength  which  his  will  has  acquired.  Just  as  the 
gravity  of  a crime  proceeds  from  the  fact  that  he 
who  commits  it  acts  from  a determined  purpose,  or, 
as  is  usually  said,  sins  out  of  malice ; so  the  merit 
of  any  good  work  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  it 
is  done  under  a vow. 

Again,  the  more  excellent  the  virtue  from  which 
any  action  proceeds,  the  more  meritorious  does 
that  action  become,  since  an  action  derives  all  its 
merit  from  the  virtue  which  inspires  it.  Now,  it 
may  sometimes  happen  that  an  action  of  inferior 
virtue  may  have  its  origin  in  a superior  virtue. 


60 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


For  example  we  might  do  an  act  of  justice  from 
a motive  of  charity.  Hence,  it  is  far  best  to  per- 
form acts  of  inferior  virtue  from  motives  of  superior 
virtue;  just  as  an  act  of  justice  is  enhanced  in 
value,  if  it  be  performed  out  of  charity.  Now,  we 
know,  that  the  particular  good  works  that  we 
accomplish  proceed  from  inferior  virtues ; fasting, 
for  instance,  is  an  act  of  abstemiousness  ; continence 
proceeds  from  chastity,  and  so  of  the  rest.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  a vow  is,  strictly  speaking,  an  act 
of  latria } which,  undoubtedly,  is  a higher  virtue 
than  abstemiousness,  chastity,  or  any  other  virtue. 
For  it  is  more  meritorious  to  worship  God,  than  to 
order  ourselves  rightly,  towards,  either  our  neigh- 
bour, or  ourselves.  Hence  chastity,  abstemiousness, 
or  any  other  virtue,  inferior  to  latria , derives  ad- 
ditional value  if  it  be  performed  under  a vow. 

This  opinion  is  supported  by  the  pious  desire  of 
the  Church  which  invites  men  to  make  a vow  to  go 
to  the  Holy  Land,  or  elsewhere,  in  her  defence,  and 
grants  indulgences  and  other  privileges  to  such  as 
make  this  vow.  She  would  certainly  not  invite  the 
faithful  to  bind  themselves  by  vow,  were  good 
works,  done  without  such  obligation,  more  meri- 
torious than  those  done  under  vow.  Did  she  act 
thus,  she  would  be  disobeying  the  exhortation  of 
St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xii.  31),  “Be  zealous  for  the  better 

1 Divine  worship  or  service. — Editor. 


MERIT  OF  VOWS 


61 


gifts.”  If  the  good  works  done  without  a vow  were 
the  most  praiseworthy,  the  Church,  far  from  en- 
couraging her  children  to  bind  themselves  by  vow, 
would  withhold  them  from  so  doing,  either  by  pro- 
hibition or  dissuasion ; and,  as  it  is  her  desire  that 
the  faithful  should  be  in  the  most  meritorious  state, 
she  would  absolve  them  all  from  their  vows,  in 
order,  as  far  as  possible,  to  enhance  the  merit  of 
their  good  works.  Hence,  the  opinion  that  vows 
detract  from  the  value  of  good  works,  is  repugnant 
to  the  spirit  of  the  Church,  and  must  be  rejected 
as  heretical. 

All  the  arguments  alleged  in  favour  of  this 
opinion,  may  be  easily  answered.  First,  the  pro- 
position, that  a good  work  performed  under  vow, 
is  less  voluntary  than  one  done  without  an  obliga- 
tion, is  by  no  means  universally  true.  For  many 
persons  perform  what  they  have  vowed  to  do,  so 
promptly,  that  even  had  they  not  already  made 
vows,  they  would  not  only  have  done  those  same 
good  works,  but  they  would  have  also  vowed  to  do 
them.  Secondly,  granted  that  a deed  performed 
under  vow,  or  under  obedience,  be  in  a sense  in- 
voluntary, nevertheless,  he  who  accomplishes  such 
a deed,  does  so  from  the  necessity  of  his  vow  or 
of  obedience,  which  he  has  no  desire  to  violate. 
Hence  he  -acts  in  a more  praiseworthy  and  meri- 
torious manner,  than  if  he  were  performing  a good 


62 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


work  at  his  own  pleasure  and  without  a vow.  And, 
even  if  he  have  not  a will  to  do  some  particular 
thing  ( e.g . to  fast),  he,  nevertheless,  desires  to  accom- 
plish his  vow,  or  to  practise  obedience,  which  is 
much  more  meritorious  than  fasting.  Hence,  he 
who  fasts  out  of  obedience  performs  a more  accept- 
able work  than  he  who  fasts  by  his  own  desire. 
And  the  will  to  fulfil  a vow,  or  to  practise  obedience, 
is  held  to  be  so  much  the  more  perfect  in  proportion 
as  the  deed  accomplished  for  the  sake  of  obedience, 
or  of  keeping  a vow,  is  repugnant  to  nature.  Hence 
St.  Jerome  says  to  Rusticus,  “ My  principal  exhorta- 
tion to  thee  is,  not  to  be  guided  by  thine  own  judg- 
ment.” Then  he  adds,  “Neither  shalt  thou  do 
according  to  thine  own  will;  but  thou  shalt  eat 
as  thou  art  bidden ; thou  shalt  have  as  much  as  is 
given  thee ; thou  shalt  wear  the  raiment  appointed 
thee ; thou  shalt  perform  the  whole  task  allotted  to 
thee;  thou  shalt  be  subject  to  him  to  whom  thou 
wouldst  fain  not  submit;  thou  shalt  go  weary  to 
bed ; thou  shalt  fall  asleep  on  thy  feet  and  shalt  be 
forced  to  rise  before  thou  hast  slumbered  thy  fill.” 

The  passage  just  cited  shows  us,  that  the  merit  of 
a good  work  consists  in  a man  doing  or  suffering 
something  for  the  love  of  God,  which  is  contrary 
to  his  own  will.  For,  alacrity  of  will,  and  fervour 
of  divine  love,  are  chiefly  shown  when  that  which 
we  do  for  God  is  repugnant  to  our  own  inclinations. 


MERIT  OF  VOWS 


63 


The  martyrs  are  commended  inasmuch  as,  for  the 
love  of  God,  they  endured  many  things  repugnant 
to  nature.  Hence,  when  Eleazar  was  tortured  he 
said,  “ I suffer  grievous  pains  in  body : but  in  soul 
I am  well  content  to  suffer  these  things  because  I 
fear  thee.” 

It  is  argued,  that  a man  may  not  perchance  retain 
the  will  to  fulfil  his  vow,  or  to  practise  obedience ; 
but  God,  as  we  know,  judge th  the  heart,  and  will 
hold  such  an  one  unfaithful  to  his  vow  and  to 
obedience.  If  a man  perform  what  he  has  vowed, 
or  obey  an  order,  solely  out  of  motives  of  fear  or 
human  respect  he  gains  no  merit  before  God ; for 
he  acts,  not  from  a desire  to  please  Him,  but  solely 
under  compulsion.  Nevertheless,  his  vow,  if  it  were 
made  out  of  charity,  is  not  unprofitable  to  him; 
for  he  has  merited  more  by  making  it,  than  others 
have  done  by  fasting  without  any  vow.  Moreover, 
the  merit  of  his  vow  remains  to  him  if  he  repent 
of  the  infidelity  of  his  heart.  This  is  our  answer 
to  the  authorities  adduced.  They  apply  to  the  cases 
wherein  men  keep  their  vows  under  the  compulsion 
of  human  motives,  such  as  fear,  or  shame ; but  they 
do  not  speak  of  the  necessity  whereby  men  are 
constrained,  from  motives  of  Divine  love,  to  do  or 
suffer  what  is  naturally  repugnant  to  them,  in  order 
thereby  to. fulfil  the  will  of  God.  This  is  made 
clear  by  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  “ Not  with  sadness 


64 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


or  of  necessity  ” (2  Cor.  ix.  7).  For  human  necessity 
induces  sadness ; whereas  the  constraining  of  divine 
love  dissipates,  or  lessens  it. 

We  may,  in  support  of  what  we  have  said,  quote 
the  words  of  Prosper.  “Lest  we  should  act  not 
devoutly  but  unwillingly.  For  the  necessity  which 
proceeds  from  divine  love  does  not  diminish  love, 
but  increases  it.”  And  St.  Augustine,  in  his  epistle 
(127)  to  Armen tarius  and  Paulina,  shows  that  this 
necessity  is  desirable  and  praiseworthy.  “ Since,” 
he  says,  “ thou  now  hast  bound  thyself,  it  is  not 
lawful  for  thee  to  act  otherwise.  Before  thou  wert 
under  a vow,  thou  wert  free  to  do  as  thou  wouldst  : 
now,  however,  thou  art  subject  to  thy  vow.  Never- 
theless, liberty  is  not  a matter  of  congratulation, 
since  it  renders  man  debtor  for  what  he  cannot 
repay  with  money.  But  now  that  thy  promise  is 
made  to  God,  I do  not  invite  thee  to  great  justice 
(i.e.  to  the  chastity  which  thou  hast  vowed),  but 
I warn  thee  against  great  iniquity.  For,  if  thou 
dost  not  perform  what  thou  hast  vowed,  thou  wilt 
not  remain  as  thou  wert  before  thy  vow.  Before 
thy  vow  thou  wert  lower  than  at  present,  not  worse ; 
now,  if  thou  dost  (which  God  forbid)  break  thy 
faith  with  Him,  thou  wilt  be  as  much  the  more 
accursed  as  thou  wilt  be  blessed  if  thou  dost  keep 
thy  vow.  Repent  not  of  thy  promise  to  God ; but 
rather  rejoice  that  now  it  is  no  longer  lawful  for 


MERIT  OF  VOWS 


65 


thee  to  do  that  which  formerly,  to  thy  detriment, 
was  permissible  to  thee.  Act  firmly  and  fulfil  in 
deed  what  thou  hast  promised  by  word.  He  will 
help  thee  who  asks  for  thy  vows.  Blessed  necessity 
which  constrains  us  to  better  things.”  From  these 
words  we  see,  how  erroneous  is  the  doctrine,  that 
persons  are  not  bound  to  keep  a vow  that  they  may 
have  made  to  go  into  religion. 


K 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  PERFECTION  OF  BROTHERLY  LOVE  WHICH  IS 
NECESSARY  FOR  SALVATION 

We  may  fittingly  conclude  these  considerations 
about  the  perfection  of  charity,  as  it  regards  God, 
with  some  reflections  touching  perfect  charity  as  it 
concerns  our  neighbour.  There  are  several  degrees 
of  perfect  love  of  our  neighbour,  just  as  there  are 
several  degrees  of  perfect  love  of  God.  There  is  a 
certain  perfection  of  this  virtue  which  is  a matter  of 
precept,  and  which  is  necessary  to  salvation.  There 
is,  further,  a supererogatory  perfection,  which  is  a 
matter  of  counsel.  The  perfection  of  brotherly  love 
necessary  to  salvation,  is  of  the  nature  prescribed  by 
the  precept,  “ Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self.” As  God  is  the  universal  Good,  existing  above 
us,  it  is  necessary,  as  we  have  before  said,  for  the 
perfection  of  divine  love  that  the  whole  heart  should 
be,  in  a certain  sense,  turned  to  God.  This  degree 
of  divine  love  is  expressed  by  the  precept,  “Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  thy  whole  heart.” 
But  our  neighbour  is  not  the  universal  good  existing 

66 


BROTHERLY  LOVE  A COMMANDMENT  67 


above  ourselves ; he  is  a particular  good  beneath  us. 
Therefore,  we  are  not  bidden  to  love  him  with  our 
whole  heart,  but  as  ourselves.  Three  consequences 
follow  from  this  proposition. 

First,  our  love  must  be  sincere.  It  is  in  the 
nature  of  love  to  wish  well  to  the  object  beloved. 
Hence,  love  tends  towards  two  things : to  the  one  to 
whom  we  are  wishing  well,  and  to  the  good  which 
we  desire  for  him.  And,  although  both  these  things 
are  said  to  be  loved,  that  object  is  truly  loved  to 
which  we  wish  some  good.  For  the  good  which  we 
wish  to  another  person  is  only  loved  per  accidens , 
because  it  falls  within  the  limits  of  the  act  of  love. 
Now  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  we  really  and  sin- 
cerely love  an  object  which  we  desire  to  destroy; 
and  as  many  of  the  things  which  we  use  are  de- 
stroyed, we  only  love  such  things  per  accidens.  For 
instance,  we  consume  wine  in  drinking,  we  expose  a 
horse  to  death  in  battle ; in  such  cases,  we  are  truly 
loving  ourselves  and  are  only  loving  these  other 
things  per  accidens , on  account  of  the  use  which 
they  are  to  us. 

It  is  clear,  likewise,  that  every  man  does,  by 
nature,  love  himself  truly,  in  so  far  as  to  wish 
benefits  to  himself,  happiness,  for  instance,  virtue, 
knowledge,  and  the  necessaries  of  life.  But  those 
things  of  which  he  avails  himself  he  does  not  truly 
love  in  themselves ; rather,  he  loves  the  service  they 


68 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


render  him,  and  he  prefers  himself  to  them.  Now 
this  proposition  is  as  true  with  regard  to  persons,  as 
it  is  with  regard  to  things.  We  love  some  men 
only  because  they  are  of  use  to  us ; and  when  this 
is  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  we  do  not  truly  love 
them  as  we  love  ourselves.  He  that  loves  another 
because  he  is  of  service  to  him,  or  affords  him 
gratification,  proves  that  he  loves  himself.  As  he 
seeks  only  convenience  and  profit  from  his  friend 
and  not  his  friend  himself,  he  can  only  be  said  to 
love  his  friend  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  said 
to  love  wine  or  horses,  i.e.  not  as  ourselves  by 
wishing  well  to  them,  but  rather  as  valuing  them 
as  an  advantage  to  ourselves. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  prove,  that  sincerity  is 
necessary  to  perfect  charity.  We  see  this,  first,  . 
from  the  precept  which  bids  us  to  love  our  neigh- 
bour as  ourselves.  “ The  end  of  the  commandment 
is  charity  from  a pure  heart,  and  a good  conscience, 
and  an  unfeigned  faith,”  says  St.  Paul  (1  Tim.  i.  5). 
Again  he  says,  “ Charity  seeketh  not  her  own  ” 

(1  Cor.  xiii.  5),  but  wishes  well  to  those  whom  she 
loves.  He  gives  his  own  example,  as  a lesson  of 
charity,  “ not  seeking  that  which  is  profitable  to 
myself,  but  to  many,  that  they  may  be  saved” 

(1  Cor.  x.  33). 

Secondly,  the  way  in  which  we  are  commanded  to 
love  our  neighbour,  viz.  “ as  ourselves,”  proves  that 


BROTHERLY  LOYE  A COMMANDMENT  69 


our  charity  ought  to  be  rightly  ordered  and  sincere. 
For  true  and  rightly  ordered  love  prefers  the  greater 
to  the  lesser  good.  Now  it  is  clear,  that,  of  all 
human  good,  the  welfare  of  the  soul  is  the  greatest : 
next  in  degree  comes  physical  well-being ; and 
external  goods  occupy  the  last  place.  It  is  natural 
to  man  to  observe  this  order  in  his  preference.  For 
who  would  not  rather  lose  bodily  eyesight  than  the 
use  of  reason  ? Who  would  not  part  with  all  his 
property  in  order  to  save  his  life  ? “ Skin  for  skin,” 

said  Satan  to  the  Lord,  “ and  all  that  a man  hath  he 
will  give  for  his  life”  (Job  ii.  4).  Very  few,  if  any, 
fail  to  observe  this  order  in  their  preference  con- 
cerning the  natural  goods  of  which  we  have  given 
examples.  There  are,  nevertheless,  many  who  per- 
vert this  order  of  charity,  in  the  case  of  the  other 
goods  which  exist  in  addition  to  the  purely  natural 
ones  of  which  we  have  spoken.  They  will,  for 
instance,  prefer  physical  health  or  comfort,  to  the 
acquisition  of  virtue  or  learning ; and  they  will 
expose  their  bodies  to  danger  and  hardship,  in  order 
to  gain  material  wealth.  Now  this,  as  we  shall 
show  more  at  large,  is  not  true  love.  Neither  do 
they  who  act  thus,  love  themselves  sincerely.  It  is 
quite  clear  that  the  chief  part  of  a thing  is  really 
the  thing  itself.  When  we  say  that  a city  acted 
thus  or  thus,  we  mean  that  the  chief  citizens  acted 
in  such  or  such  a manner.  Now  we  know,  that  the 


70 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


principal  thing  in  man  is  the  soul,  and  that  the 
chief  among  the  powers  or  faculties  of  the  soul,  is 
the  reason  or  understanding.  He,  therefore,  who 
despises  the  good  of  the  rational  soul,  for  the  sake 
of  physical  welfare,  or  of  the  advantage  of  the 
sensitive  soul,  plainly  shows  that  he  does  not  truly 
love  himself.  “ He  that  loveth  iniquity,  hateth  his 
own  soul  ” (Ps.  x.  6). 

How  we  are  commanded  to  observe  the  same 
order  in  the  love  of  our  neighbour  that  we  ought 
to  observe  in  the  love  of  ourselves.  Hence  we  must 
desire  his  welfare  in  the  same  manner  as  we  ought 
to  desire  our  own,  i.e.  first  his  spiritual  good, 
secondly  his  physical  prosperity,  including  in  the 
latter  category  such  good  as  consists  in  extrinsic 
possessions.  But,  if  we  wish  our  neighbour  to  have 
material  goods  harmful  to  his  health  of  body,  or 
physical  welfare  opposed  to  his  spiritual  profit,  we 
do  not  truly  love  him. 

We  see,  thirdly,  from  the  precept  concerning 
charity,  that  our  love  of  our  neighbour  must  be 
holy.  That  is  called  holy  which  is  directed  to 
God.  An  altar,  and  the  other  things  used  in  the 
sacred  ministry,  are  holy,  because  they  are  dedicated 
to  His  service.  How,  when  one  man  loves  another 
as  himself,  there  must  be  intercommunion  between 
them ; and,  in  so  far  as  the  two  persons  are  united 
together,  they  are  considered  as  forming  one;  and 


BROTHERLY  LOYE  A COMMANDMENT  71 

the  one  behaves  to  the  other  as  to  himself.  There 
are,  however,  several  ways  in  which  two  persons  may 
be  joined  together.  They  may  be  joined  by  ties  of 
blood,  i.e.  by  being  born  of  the  same  parents.  They 
may  be  joined  by  certain  social  ties — they  may  be 
fellow-citizens,  under  the  same  ruler  and  the  same 
laws.  Or,  they  may  be  joined  by  certain  professional 
or  commercial  bonds  — they  may  be  fellow-workmen, 
or  fellow-soldiers.  Now  the  neighbourly  love  which 
may  exist  between  men,  united  by  these  various 
bonds,  may  be  just  and  seemly,  but  it  cannot,  on 
that  account,  be  called  holy.  For  love  can  only 
be  called  holy  in  so  far  as  it  is  directed  to  God. 

Fellow-citizens  agree  in  being  subject  to  the  same 
ruler  whose  laws  they  obey;  and  all  men,  inasmuch 
as  they  naturally  aspire  to  happiness,  are  united 
in  their  inclinations  towards  God,  the  Beginning 
of  all  things,  the  Source  of  happiness,  and  the 
Principle  of  justice.  But,  we  must  remember,  that, 
in  the  right  order,  the  general  is  preferable  to  the 
particular  good.  A part  is,  by  a natural  instinct, 
governed  by  the  good  of  the  whole.  The  hand,  for 
example,  is  exposed  to  danger  in  order  to  shield 
the  head  or  heart,  the  source  of  life.  Now,  in 
the  communion,  whereof  we  have  been  speaking, 
and  in  which  all  men  are  united  by  their  natural 
tendency  towards  happiness,  each  individual  must 
be  considered  as  a part,  and  God,  in  whom  the 


72 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


happiness  of  all  consists,  must  be  regarded  as  the 
universal  Good  of  the  whole.  Hence,  according 
to  right  reason  and  natural  instinct,  each  man 
orders  himself  towards  God,  as  a part  is  ordered 
to  the  whole ; and  this  order  is  made  perfect  by 
charity,  whereby  man  loves  himself  for  God’s  sake. 
Now,  when  he  also  loves  his  neighbour  for  God’s 
sake,  he  loves  him  as  himself;  and  his  love  thus 
becomes  holy.  This  is  plainly  expressed  by  St.  John, 
in  the  following  words : “ This  commandment  we 
have  from  God  that  he,  who  loveth  God,  love 
also  his  brother”  (1  John  iv.  21). 

The  precept  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves 
teaches  us,  fourthly,  that  our  love  of  our  neighbour 
must  be  practical  and  fruitful.  Men  love  them- 
selves, not  only  by  wishing  good  to  befall  them, 
and  by  desiring  protection  from  evil;  but  also, 
by  endeavouring,  by  all  means  in  their  power,  to 
procure  prosperity  for  themselves,  and  to  defend 
themselves  from  adversity.  Hence,  when  a man 
truly  loves  another  as  himself,  he  will  show  his 
love  not  only  by  good  wishes,  but  by  practical 
benefits.  He  will  obey  the  teaching  of  St.  John 
(1  Ep.  iii.  18),  “ My  little  children,  let  us  not  love 
in  word,  nor  in  tongue,  but  in  deed  and  in  truth.” 


CHAPTEE  XIV 


THE  PERFECTION  OF  LOVE  OF  OUR  NEIGHBOUR 
CONSIDERED  AS  A MATTER  OF  COUNSEL 

We  devoted  the  last  chapter  to  the  consideration  of 
the  perfection  of  brotherly  love,  as  exhibited  in  the 
degree  necessary  to  salvation.  We  will  now  treat 
of  the  same  virtue,  as  manifested  in  a degree  exceed- 
ing common  perfection,  and  thus  forming  a matter 
of  counsel.  This  perfection  of  fraternal  charity  may 
be  regarded  from  a triple  point  of  view.  First  we 
may  consider  its  comprehensiveness ; for  love  is 
perfect  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  persons 
whom  it  includes. 

Now  there  are  three  degrees  in  the  comprehen- 
siveness of  charity.  Some  men  love  their  neigh- 
bours, either  on  account  of  the  benefits  they  receive 
from  them,  or  by  reason  of  some  tie  of  blood  or  of 
social  life.  This  love  is  bounded  by  the  limits  of 
human  friendship,  and  of  it  Our  Lord  says,  “ If  you 
love  them  that  love  you,  what  reward  shall  you 
have  ? do  not  even  the  publicans  this  ? And  if 
you  salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  you  more  ? 

L 73 


74 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


do  not  even  the  heathens  this  ? ” (Matt.  v.  46). 
Others,  again,  include  strangers  in  their  charity,  as 
long  as  they  meet  with  nothing  in  these  strangers 
antipathetic  to  themselves.  This  degree  of  charity 
is  limited  by  natural  feeling;  for  as  all  men  form 
one  species,  each  individual  man  is  by  nature  the 
friend  of  all  others.  Thus,  it  is  natural  to  us  to 
put  one  who  has  lost  his  way  on  the  right  road, 
to  help  a man  who  has  fallen  down,  and  to  perform 
similar  kindly  offices.  As,  however,  we  naturally 
prefer  ourselves  to  others,  it  follows,  that  we  shall 
love  one  thing  and  hate  what  is  opposed  to  it. 
Therefore  a merely  natural  love  never  includes  the 
love  of  our  enemies.  But  the  third  degree  of 
charity  is  the  love  extended  even  to  our  enemies. 
Speaking  of  this  love,  Our  Lord  says  (Matt.  v.  44), 
“ Love  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  that  hate 
you.”  He  shows  that  this  love  constitutes  the 
perfection  of  charity,  by  concluding  His  instruction 
with  the  words,  “Be  ye,  therefore,  perfect,  as  also 
your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect.” 

The  fact  that  this  perfection  is  beyond  ordinary 
perfection,  appears  in  the  words  of  St.  Augustine 
(Enchirid.),  “These  things  belong  to  the  perfect 
among  the  sons  of  God.  Nevertheless,  all  the 
faithful  ought  to  strive  to  fulfil  them;  and  by 
prayer  and  self-conquest  the  soul  of  man  ought  to 
be  brought  to  these  sentiments.  But  this  sublime 


BROTHERLY  LOVE  A COUNSEL  75 


virtue  is  not  found  in  the  generality  of  mankind, 
although  we  believe  that  the  prayer : ‘ Forgive  us 
our  trespasses  as  we  forgive  them  that  trespass 
against  us/  is  heard  by  God.” 

But,  as  by  the  term  “ our  neighbour  ” all  men 
are  understood ; and  as  no  exception  is  made  in 
the  precept  of  loving  our  neighbour  as  ourselves ; 
it  may  be  thought,  that  the  love  of  our  enemies  is 
commanded  as  necessary  to  salvation.  This  diffi- 
culty is  easily  solved,  if  we  call  to  mind  what  has 
been  said  about  the  perfection  of  Divine  love.  The 
precept,  “Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
thy  whole  heart,”  etc.,  may  be  understood  as  a 
matter  either  of  precept,  to  be  obeyed  as  a neces- 
sity, or  as  a counsel,  or  as  perfection  attained  only 
by  the  Blessed  in  Heaven.  If  the  command,  “Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  thy  whole  heart” 
be  understood  to  mean  that  man’s  heart  is  to  be 
always  actually  fixed  on  God,  it  can  only  be  obeyed 
by  the  Blessed  in  Heaven.  If  it  be  taken  as  signi- 
fying that  man  is  not  to  admit  anything  into  his 
heart  contrary  to  Divine  love,  it  is,  in  this  sense, 
a precept  which  must  of  necessity  be  obeyed.  If, 
again,  we  understand  by  these  words,  the  renun- 
ciation of  all  things  for  the  sake  of  greater  freedom 
in  communion  with  God,  it  is  a counsel  of  perfec- 
tion. In  the  same  way  we  may  say  that  it  is  a 
precept  not  to  exclude  even  our  enemies  from  the 


76 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


universal  love  of  our  neighbour  enjoined  upon  us, 
nor  to  admit  within  our  heart  anything  opposed  to 
this  love. 

But  to  love  our  enemies  with  an  actual  love  when 
there  is  no  necessity  for  so  doing,  is  a counsel  of 
perfection.  Of  course  it  is  necessary  for  salvation 
to  love  our  enemies  by  doing  them  actual  service 
and  assisting  them,  if  they  be  in  any  extremity,  if, 
for  example,  they  be  dying  of  hunger.  The  precept 
of  brotherly  love  does  not,  however,  bind  us  to 
show  any  special  affection  nor  to  do  any  particular 
service  to  our  enemies,  unless  they  be  in  the 
extreme  distress  of  which  we  have  spoken ; neither 
are  we  bound  by  precept  to  do  any  special  service 
to  any  other  of  our  neighbours.  Love  of  our 
enemies  springs,  directly  and  purely,  from  love  of 
God;  whereas  our  love  for  other  men  arises  from 
divers  motives,  e.g.>  from  gratitude,  from  kinship, 
from  fellow-citizenship,  and  the  like.  But  nothing 
save  the  love  of  God  can  make  us  love  our  enemies ; 
for  we  love  them  because  they  are  His  creatures, 
made  in  His  image,  and  capable  of  enjoying  Him. 
And,  as  charity  prefers  God  before  all  other  good, 
the  consideration  of  the  Divine  Good  which  inclines 
it  to  love  its  enemies,  outweighs  the  consideration 
of  any  injury  received  from  them  which  would 
incline  our  nature  to  hate  them.  Thus,  in  pro- 


BROTHERLY  LOYE  A COUNSEL  77 


portion  to  the  love  of  God  in  a man’s  soul,  will  be 
his  readiness  to  love  his  enemies. 

The  perfection  of  brotherly  love  depends,  secondly, 
upon  its  intensity.  We  know  that  the  more  in- 
tensely a man  loves  one  object,  the  more  easily  will 
he  for  its  sake  despise  other  things.  Hence  the 
perfection  of  his  love  for  his  neighbour,  may  be 
gauged  by  what  he  sacrifices  on  his  neighbour’s 
account.  Some  men,  in  their  love  of  others,  will 
give  up  their  material  possessions,  either  dispensing 
them  to  their  neighbours  at  their  discretion,  or 
relinquishing  them  entirely,  in  order  to  supply  the 
necessities  of  other  men.  St.  Paul  seems  to  refer 
to  this  form  of  charity  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (xiii.  3),  where  he  says,  “ If  I should 
distribute  all  my  goods  to  feed  the  poor.”  In  the 
book  of  Canticles,  also,  we  are  told  that,  “ If  a man 
should  give  all  the  substance  of  his  house  for  love, 
he  shall  despise  it  as  nothing”  (Cant.  viii.  7).  Our 
Lord  includes  this  in  the  counsel  of  perfection, 
which  He  gave  when  He  said,  “ If  thou  wilt  be 
perfect,  go,  sell  all  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the 
poor  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  Heaven ; and 
come  follow  me  ” (Matt.  xix.  21).  In  this  passage 
the  sacrifice  of  material  possession  seems  to  be 
recommended  for  two  ends.  The  words,  “give  to 
the  poor,”  ' point  to  love  of  our  neighbour ; the 
other  words,  “ follow  Me,”  indicate  love  of  God. 


78 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


But  a man  fulfils  the  same  end,  whether  he  suffers 
the  loss  of  his  material  goods  for  the  love  of  God, 
or  for  the  sake  of  his  neighbour.  St.  Paul  com- 
mends the  charity  of  the  Hebrews  in  these  words, 
“ You  took  with  joy  the  being  stripped  of  your  own 
goods  ” (Heh.  x.  34).  In  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
(xii.  26)  we  are  told  also  that,  “ He  that  neglecteth 
a loss  for  the  sake  of  a friend  is  just.”  St.  John 
says  in  like  manner  (1  Ep.  iii.  17),  “ He  that  hath 
the  substance  of  this  world  and  shall  see  his  brother 
in  need,  and  shall  shut  up  his  bowels  from  him,  how 
doth  the  charity  of  God  abide  in  him  ? ” 

The  second  degree  of  love  of  our  neighbour, 
consists  in  exposing  ourselves  -to  physical  hardships 
for  his  sake.  St.  Paul  gives  us  an  example  of  this 
kind  of  charity  when  he  says,  “ In  labour  and  toil 
we  worked  day  and  night,  lest  we  should  be 
chargeable  to  any  of  you”  (2  Thess.  iii.  8).  This 
second  degree  of  charity  also  includes  a willingness 
to  hear  suffering  and  persecution  for  the  love  of  our 
neighbour.  St.  Paul  mentions  this  charity  in  the 
2nd  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (i.  6),  “Whether 
we  be  in  tribulation,  it  is  for  your  exhortation  and 
salvation,”  and  also  in  his  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
“ Wherein  I labour  even  unto  bands  as  an  evil  doer ; 
but  the  word  of  God  is  not  bound.  Therefore  I 
endure  all  things,  for  the  sake  of  the  elect,  that  they 
may  obtain  salvation”  (2  Tim.  ii.  9).  Those  fail  to 


BROTHERLY  LOVE  A COUNSEL  79 


attain  to  this  degree  of  charity  who  will  deprive 
themselves  of  no  luxury,  and  submit  to  no  in- 
convenience for  the  sake  of  others.  It  is  to  such 
men  as  these  that  Amos  (vi.  4)  addresses  the 
following  words : “ You  that  sleep  upon  beds  of 
ivory,  and  are  wanton  on  your  couches : you  that 
eat  the  lambs  out  of  the  flock,  and  the  calves  out 
of  the  midst  of  the  herd ; you  that  sing  to  the 
sound  of  the  psaltery:  they  have  thought  them- 
selves to  have  instruments  of  music  like  David ; 
that  drink  wine  in  bowls,  and  anoint  themselves 
with  the  best  ointments ; and  they  are  not  con- 
cerned for  the  affliction  of  Joseph.”  And  Ezechiel 
also  says  (xiii.  5),  “ You  have  not  gone  up  to  face 
the  enemy,  nor  have  you  set  up  a wall  for  the  house 
of  Israel,  to  stand  in  battle  in  the  day  of  the  Lord.” 

The  third  degree  of  charity  consists  in  sacrificing 
our  life  for  another.  St.  John  (i.  3)  says,  “In  this 
we  have  known  the  charity  of  God,  because  He 
hath  laid  down  his  life  for  us ; and  we  ought  to 
lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren.”  Our  Lord 
Himself  declares  that,  “ Greater  love  than  this  hath 
no  man,  that  a man  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
friends”  (John  xv.  13).  Hence  it  is  in  this  sacri- 
fice of  life  that  the  perfection  of  charity  consists. 

The  word  “ life  ” may  be  understood,  however,  in 
two  senses.  ' There  is  the  spiritual  life  whereby  God 
Himself  animates  the  soul.  We  may  not  sacrifice 


80 


THE  EELIGIOUS  STATE 


this  life.  For  our  love  of  our  soul  is  proportionate 
to  our  love  of  God ; and  we  ought  to  love  God  more 
than  we  love  our  neighbour.  Therefore,  we  may 
not,  in  order  to  save  another,  injure  our  own  soul 
by  sin.  We  have  also  the  physical  life  which 
animates  our  body.  This  life  we  ought  to  lay  down 
for  the  brethren.  For,  it  is  our  duty  to  prefer  our 
neighbour  to  our  body ; and  therefore  it  is  right  to 
sacrifice  our  physical  life  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
others.  We  are  bound  by  precept  to  act  thus  if  we 
see  our  neighbour  exposed  to  any  extreme  spiritual 
danger.  Thus,  if  we  were  to  see  another  seduced 
from  the  Faith  by  unbelievers,  we  should  be  bound 
to  expose  ourselves  to  death  if,  thereby,  we  could 
save  him  from  such  ruin.  But  it  pertains  to  the 
perfection  of  justice,  and  is  a matter  of  counsel,  to 
sacrifice  life  for  the  salvation  of  those  who  are  not 
in  grave  spiritual  necessity.  St.  Paul  teaches  us  to 
do  so  by  his  own  example,  for  he  says,  “ But  I,  most 
gladly  will  spend  and  be  spent  myself  for  your 
souls  ” (2  Cor.  xii.  15).  On  this  passage  the  Gloss 
remarks,  “ It  is  perfect  charity  to  be  prepared  to  die 
for  the  brethren.”  The  state  of  slavery  does  in 
some  sort  resemble  death,  and  is  therefore  called 
civil  death.  For  life  is  chiefly  manifested  in  ability 
to  move ; he  that  cannot  move  save  by  the  agency 
of  others,  may  be  accounted  dead.  How,  a slave 
has  no  power  over  himself,  but  is  governed  by  the 


BROTHERLY  LOVE  A COUNSEL  81 


will  of  his  master ; and  therefore  this  condition  of 
bondage  may  be  compared  to  death.  Hence  a man, 
who,  for  the  love  of  another,  delivers  himself  to 
bondage,  practises  the  same  perfection  of  charity,  as 
he  who  exposes  himself  to  death.  Nay,  we  may 
say  that  he  does  more ; for  slavery  is  more  abhorrent 
to  our  nature  than  is  death. 

The  perfection  of  fraternal  charity  must  next  be 
considered  as  manifested  by  the  value  of  what  we 
do  for  others.  For  our  love  for  our  neighbour  is 
proved  by  the  value  of  the  gifts  that  we  bestow 
upon  him.  Now  there  are  three  degrees  in  this 
charity.  The  first  degree  consists  in  ministering  to 
the  bodily  wants  of  our  brethren  by  clothing  the 
naked,  feeding  the  hungry,  tending  the  sick,  and  the 
like.  Our  Lord  promises  to  consider  as  done  to 
Himself,  everything  of  this  nature  that  we  do  for 
others.  The  second  degree  of  charity  consists  in 
bestowing  upon  our  neighbour  such  spiritual  benefits 
as  do  not  exceed  the  capability  of  human  nature. 
Among  such  benefits  we  may  mention  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  ignorant,  advice  given  to  those  in  doubt, 
or  the  conversion  of  such  as  have  gone  astray. 
Such  works  of  mercy  are  commended  in  Job  iv.  3, 
“ Behold,  thou  hast  taught  many,  and  thou  hast 
strengthened  the  weary  hands : thy  words  have 
confirmed  them  that  were  staggering,  and  thou 
hast  strengthened  the  trembling  knees.”  The  third 
M 


82 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


degree  of  charity  consists  in  enriching  our  neigh- 
bour with  such  spiritual  benefits  as  are  super- 
natural and  exceed  human  reason.  Such  benefits 
are,  instruction  in  divine  truth,  direction  to  God, 
and  the  spiritual  communication  of  the  Sacraments. 
Of  gifts  such  as  these,  St.  Paul  says,  “ He  who 
giveth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles 
among  you  ” (Gal.  iii.  5).  Again  he  says  (1  Thess. 
ii.  13),  “When  you  had  received  of  us  the  word 
of  the  hearing  of  God,  you  received  it,  not  as  the 
word  of  men,  but  (as  it  is  indeed)  the  word  of  God.” 
And  writing  to  the  Corinthians  the  Apostle,  after 
saying,  “ I have  espoused  you  to  one  husband/’ 
continues,  “ for  if  he  that  cometh  preacheth  another 
Christ,  whom  we  have  not  preached ; or  if  you 
receive  another  Spirit  whom  you  have  not  received ; 
or  another  Gospel  which  you  have  not  received, 
you  might  well  bear  with  him”  (2  Cor.  xi.  2). 
He  who  bestows  upon  others  gifts  of  this  nature 
practises  a singular  perfection  of  brotherly  love ; 
for,  it  is  by  means  of  these  gifts,  that  man  attains 
to  union  with  his  last  End,  in  which  consists  his 
highest  perfection. 

Job  was  asked  by  one  of  his  friends,  “Knowest 
thou  the  great  paths  of  the  clouds,  and  the  perfect 
knowledges?”  (Job  xxxvii.  16).  The  clouds,  says 
St.  Gregory,  typify  holy  preachers.  For  these 
clouds  have  most  intricate  “ paths,”  or  ways  of 


BROTHERLY  LOVE  A COUNSEL  83 

holy  preaching,  and  “perfect  knowledges”  when 
they  recognise  that  of  their  own  merits,  they  are 
nothing,  and  that  all  that  they  impart  to  their 
neighbours  is  above  them.  A further  degree  of 
perfection  is  attained  when  spiritual  gifts  of  this 
nature  are  bestowed  not  on  one  alone,  or  on  two, 
but  on  a whole  multitude.  For,  according  to  the 
Philosopher,  the  good  of  a nation  is  better  and 
more  divine,  than  is  the  good  of  an  individual  man. 
Hence  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Ephesians  (iv.  13), 
“ Other  some  pastors  and  doctors,  for  the  perfecting 
of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the 
edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,”  i.e.  the  Church. 
And  again,  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(xiv.  12),  he  says,  “Forasmuch  as  you  are  zealous 
of  spirits,  seek  to  abound  unto  the  edifying  of  the 
Church.” 


CHAPTER  XY 

WHAT  IS  REQUIRED  TO  CONSTITUTE  THE 
STATE  OF  PERFECTION 

It  must,  as  we  have  before  said,  be  borne  in  mind 
that  perfection  does  not  consist  in  the  mere  accom- 
plishment of  a perfect  work,  but,  likewise,  in  the 
vow  to  accomplish  such  a work.  A counsel,  as  we 
have  already  observed,  has  been  given  us  on  each 
of  these  two  points.  He  therefore  who  performs 
a perfect  work  under  a vow  attains  to  a twofold 
perfection.  For,  just  as  a man  who  observes 
continence  is  practising  one  form  of  perfection ; 
so,  he  who  obliges  himself  by  vow  to  live  in 
continence  and  who  keeps  his  vow,  practises  both 
the  perfection  of  continence  and  the  perfection  of 
a vow.  For  that  perfection  which  comes  from  the 
observance  of  a vow  changes  the  state  and  condition 
of  a man  as  completely,  as  freedom  alters  the  state 
and  condition  of  a slave.  This  proposition  is 
established  in  II.  quaestion.  IX.,  where  Pope  Adrian 
says,  “ If  at  any  time  we  are  called  upon  for 
judgment  in  a capital  cause,  or  in  a cause  affecting 

84 


THE  STATE  OF  PERFECTION 


85 


a state  of  life,  we  must  act  at  our  own  discretion, 
and  not  depend  upon  others  to  examine  the  case.” 
For,  if  a man  make  a vow  to  observe  chastity,  he 
deprives  himself  of  liberty  to  marry.  But  he  who 
simply  observes  chastity  without  a vow,  is  not 
deprived  of  his  liberty.  Therefore,  he  is  not  in 
an  altered  condition,  as  is  the  case  with  a man 
bound  by  a vow.  Again,  if  one  man  serve  another, 
his  state  is  not  thereby  changed,  as  it  is  if  he 
lay  himself  under  an  obligation  to  serve  him. 

We  must  remember,  however,  that  a man  may 
deprive  himself  of  liberty  either  absolutely  ( sim - 
pliciter ) or  relatively  {secundum  quid).  If  he  bind 
himself,  either  to  God  or  man,  to  perform  some 
specific  work  for  some  allotted  time,  he  renounces 
his  freedom,  not  absolutely  but  partially,  i.e.,  with 
regard  to  the  particular  matter,  about  which  he  has 
laid  himself  under  an  obligation.  If,  however,  he 
place  himself  entirely  at  the  disposal  of  another, 
reserving  to  himself  no  liberty  whatsoever,  he 
makes  himself  a slave  absolutely,  and  thereby 
absolutely  alters  his  condition.  Thus,  if  a person 
make  a vow  to  God  to  perform  some  specified  work, 
such  as  a pilgrimage  or  a fast,  he  does  not  change 
his  condition  entirely,  but  only  partially,  i.e.y  with 
regard  to  that  particular  work  which  he  vows  to 
accomplish.  If  he  dedicate  his  whole  life  to  serve 
God  in  works  of  perfection  he  absolutely  embraces 


86 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


the  condition  or  state  of  perfection.  But,  as  some 
men  perform  works  of  perfection  without  any  vow, 
and  others  fail  to  accomplish  the  works  of  per- 
fection to  which  they  have  vowed  their  whole  lives, 
it  is  perfectly  possible  for  persons  to  be  perfect 
without  being  in  the  state  of  perfection,  or  to  be 
in  a state  of  perfection  without  being  perfect. 


CHAPTER  XYI 


THE  STATE  OF  PERFECTION  IS  A CONDITION 
BEFITTING  BISHOPS  AND  RELIGIOUS 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  is  easy  to  see  which 
are  the  classes  of  men  whom  the  state  of  perfection 
befits.  We  know  that  there  are  three  roads  to  the 
perfection  of  divine  love,  to  wit  the  giving  up  of 
material  possessions;  the  sacrifice  of  marriage  and 
of  earthly  ties;  and  total  self-denial  either  by 
death  for  Christ,  or  by  the  abnegation  of  self-will. 
Now,  they  who  by  vow  dedicate  their  whole  lives 
to  these  works  of  perfection,  manifestly  embrace 
the  state  of  perfection.  And,  as  in  every  religious 
order  these  three  vows  are  made,  it  is  plain  that 
every  form  of  religious  life  is  included  in  the  state 
of  perfection. 

Again,  we  have  pointed  out  that  there  are  three 
elements  in  the  perfection  of  brotherly  love.  It  is 
necessary  to  perfect  brotherly  love,  first,  that  a 
man  love  his  enemies  and  assist  them;  secondly, 
that  he  lay  down  his  life  for  the  brethren  either 
by  exposing  himself  to  the  danger  of  death  or  by 

87 


88 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


devoting  his  whole  life  to  their  service ; and  thirdly, 
that  he  minister  to  their  spiritual  needs.  Now, 
bishops  are  bound  to  fulfil  these  three  offices  of 
charity.  As  they  undertake  the  entire  charge  of 
their  churches,  wherein  oftentimes  many  will  be 
found  to  hate,  persecute,  and  revile  them,  they  are 
under  the  obligation  of  repaying  their  enemies  and 
persecutors  by  benevolence  and  charity,  after  the 
example  of  the  Apostles,  whose  successors  they  are, 
and  who  dwelt  among  those  most  hostile  to  them 
and  laboured  for  their  conversion.  Thus  were 
verified  the  words  of  Our  Lord  (Matt.  x.  16), 
“Behold  I send  you  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of 
wolves.”  For,  although  the  Apostles  were,  so  to 
speak,  torn  by  their  enemies,  they  were  not  de- 
stroyed, but,  on  the  contrary,  they  converted  those 
who  maltreated  them.  St.  Augustine  in  his  book, 
Dc  Sermone  Domini  in  monte , has  the  following 
commentary  on  the  words,  “ If  one  strike  thee  on 
thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also  ” 
(Matt.  v.  39):  “These  words  (he  says),  inviting  us 
to  mercy,  appeal  most  to  such  as  have  to  minister 
to  those  whom  they  love,  whether  they  be  children, 
or  men  of  frenzied  brain.  For,  from  such  persons 
they  suffer  much ; and  they  are  prepared,  if  need 
be,  to  suffer  more.  Thus,  the  great  Physician  and 
Master  of  souls  instructs  His  disciples,  that  they 
must  bear,  with  serenity,  the  follies  of  those  whose 


THE  STATE  OF  PEKFECTION 


89 


salvation  they  desire  to  secure.  For  crime  is  an 
indication  of  a weak  mind,  as  innocence  is  a proof 
of  perfect  strength.”  Hence  St.  Paul,  writing  to 
the  Corinthians,  says,  “We  are  reviled  and  we 
bless;  we  are  persecuted  and  we  suffer  it;  we  are 
blasphemed  and  we  entreat”  (1  Cor.  iv.  12). 

Bishops  are  further  bound  to  sacrifice  their  lives 
for  the  salvation  of  those  committed  to  them,  and 
thus  to  put  in  practice  the  words  of  Our  Lord,  “ I 
am  the  Good  Shepherd : the  Good  Shepherd  layeth 
down  his  life  for  his  sheep  ” (John  x.  11).  Speaking 
of  these  words,  St.  Gregory  says,  “In  the  Gospel 
which  has  been  read  to  you,  beloved  brethren,  you 
learn  both  a lesson  for  yourselves,  and  the  danger 
which  threatens  us.  There  is  set  before  us  both 
the  contempt  of  death,  with  which  we  ought  to  be 
inspired,  and  the  model  that  we  ought  to  imitate.” 
He  further  adds,  “ Our  first  duty  is,  in  charity,  to 
distribute  our  goods  to  our  sheep ; and  we  are 
further  bound,  if  need  be,  to  serve  them  by  our 
death.  . . . The  wolf  that  cometh  upon  the  sheep 
signifies  any  unjust  seducer  or  oppressor  of  the 
faithful  and  the  lowly.  He  that  is  no  true  shep- 
herd but  only  bears  the  semblance  of  such,  will 
leave  his  sheep  and  take  to  flight,  being  too  fearful 
of  death  to  dare  to  resist  iniquity.”  From  these 
words  it  is  clear,  that  it  is  one  of  the  duties  of  those 
N 


90 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


discharging  the  episcopal  office  to  face  death  for  the 
sake  of  the  church  committed  to  them. 

Hence,  those  who  undertake  this  office  are  bound 
to  practise  such  perfection  of  charity  as  consists  in 
the  sacrifice  of  their  life  for  the  brethren.  In  the 
same  manner,  a bishop  is  bound  by  his  office  to 
dispense  spiritual  gifts  to  his  neighbour,  and  thus 
to  become  a mediator  between  God  and  man,  acting 
in  the  place  of  Him  who  is  “ the  one  Mediator  of 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus”  (1  Tim.  ii). 
Moses,  speaking  as  a type  of  Our  Lord,  said,  “ I was 
the  mediator  and  stood  between  the  Lord  and  you 
at  that  time  ” (Deut.  v.  1).  Hence,  a bishop  must, 
in  the  name  of  his  people,  offer  up  prayers  and 
supplications  to  God.  “For  every  high  priest  taken 
from  among  men,  is  ordained  for  men  in  the  things 
that  appertain  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  up  gifts 
and  sacrifices  for  sins”  (Heb.  v.  1).  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  must  act  with  regard  to  his  people 
as  the  vicar  of  God,  giving  to  his  flock  by  the 
power  of  the  Lord,  judgment,  instruction,  example, 
and  sacraments.  St.  Paul  says,  “For  what  I have 
pardoned,  if  I have  pardoned  anything,  for  your 
sakes  have  I done  it  in  the  person  of  Christ  ” 
(2  Cor.  ii.  10).  Again,  in  the  same  epistle  (xiii.  3) 
he  says,  “Do  you  seek  a proof  of  Christ  that 
speaketh  in  me?”  Again  (1  Cor.  ix.  11),  he  uses 
these  words,  “ If  we  have  sown  unto  you  spiritual 


THE  STATE  OF  PERFECTION 


91 


things,  is  it  a great  matter  if  we  reap  your  carnal 
things  ? ” Now  a bishop,  at  his  ordination  or  con- 
secration, and  a religious  at  his  profession,  engages 
himself  to  this  degree  of  perfection.  St.  Paul 
encourages  St.  Timothy  to  its  practice,  in  the 
following  words : “ Fight  the  good  fight  of  faith : 
lay  hold  on  eternal  life,  whereunto  thou  art  called, 
and  hast  confessed  a good  confession  before  many 
witnesses”  (1  Tim.  vi.  12).  This  “good  confession” 
is  interpreted  by  the  Gloss  to  mean  ordination. 
Hence,  bishops,  as  well  as  religious,  are  bound  to 
a state  of  perfection.  And,  as  human  contracts 
are  drawn  up  with  certain  ceremonies,  so,  both  the 
consecration  of  bishops  and  the  profession  of 
religious  are  solemnized  by  certain  rites  and 
blessings.  Dionysius  (VI.  Cap.  Eccles.  Hierarch.) 
speaking  of  monks,  says,  “ On  this  account  the 
holy  law  has  given  them  perfect  grace,  and  has 
vouchsafed  to  bestow  it  on  them  with  a certain 
sanctifying  ceremonial  ( invocatione ).” 


CHAPTER  XVII 


THE  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  IS  MORE  SACRED  THAN  IS 
THE  RELIGIOUS  LIFE 

To  one  who  has  not  duly  considered  the  subject,  the 
religious  state  might  appear  to  be  more  sublime 
than  the  episcopal  office.  For  the  love  of  God,  to 
the  perfection  of  which  religious  dedicate  their 
lives,  far  surpasses  the  love  of  our  neighbour  to 
which  the  pontifical  state  is  devoted;  just  as  the 
contemplative  life,  in  which  religious  are  engaged, 
is  nobler  than  the  active  life,  to  which  bishops  are 
ordained.  Dionysius  (VI.  Cap.  Eccles.  Hierarch.) 
says  that,  “ Some  persons  call  religious  servants,  and 
others  call  them  monks,  on  account  of  their  pure 
service  and  ministry  to  God,  and  by  reason  of 
their  simple  undivided  life  which  lifts  them  by 
holy  contemplation  of  those  things  which  are  un- 
seen, to  a godlike  oneness  and  to  perfection  pleasing 
to  the  Lord.”1  Again  the  episcopal  office  may 
appear  to  fall  short  of  perfection,  because  bishops 
are  allowed  to  possess  money,  notwithstanding 
the  words  of  Our  Lord,  “If  thou  wilt  be  perfect, 

1 The  word  monk  (in  Latin  monachus)  being  derived  from  the 
Greek  monaJcos  (solitary). — Editor. 

92 


PERFECTION  OF  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  93 


go,  sell  what  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor” 
(Matt.  xix.  21). 

But  this  way  of  thinking  is  not  in  accordance  with 
truth.  Dionysius  says  (V.  Cap.  Eccles.  Hierarch .) 
that  the  “ duty  of  bishops  is  to  produce  perfection,” 
and  elsewhere  (Cap.  VI.),  he  says,  that  “ the  life 
of  monks  is  a state  of  the  perfect.”  Now  it  is 
evident  that  greater  perfection  is  needed  in  order 
to  make  others  perfect  than  is  required  in  a state 
which  in  itself  is  perfect;  just  as  it  is  better  to  do 
something  than  to  be  something,  and  just  as  a cause 
is  more  powerful  than  its  effect.  Hence,  the  epis- 
copal state  is  one  of  greater  perfection,  than  is  that 
of  any  religious  order. 

This  conclusion  is  still  more  clearly  established, 
if  we  consider  the  obligations  attached  to  the 
episcopal  office,  and  those  belonging  to  the  religious 
life.  Religious  are  bound  to  renounce  material 
possessions,  to  observe  chastity,  and  to  live  in 
obedience.  But  the  duties  of  bishops  are  far  more 
onerous  and  difficult  of  fulfilment.  For  they,  as 
we  have  seen,  are  obliged  to  lay  down  their  lives 
for  their  flocks.  Hence  the  obligation  of  a bishop 
is  much  weightier  than  is  that  of  a religious. 

Bishops  are  further  bound  by  the  same  obligations 
as  those  imposed  upon  religious.  For,  as  it  is  their 
duty  to  -feed  their  flocks,  not  only  by  word  and 
example,  but  likewise  by  temporal  assistance,  they 


94 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


are  obliged,  if  need  arise,  to  distribute  their  worldly 
goods  among  those  committed  to  their  care.  St. 
Peter  was  three  times  commanded  by  our  Lord 
to  feed  His  sheep.  The  exhortation  sank  into  his 
mind,  and  he  recalls  it  in  his  epistle,  saying, 
“Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you” 
(1  St.  Peter  v.  2).  St.  Gregory,  likewise,  speaking 
as  though  in  the  person  of  bishops,  says : “We 
ought  in  charity  to  distribute  our  goods  among 
our  sheep  ...  for  how  shall  he  who  will  not  of  his 
temporal  substance  minister  unto  his  flock,  be  ready 
for  its  sake  to  sacrifice  his  life  ? ” 

Bishops,  likewise,  are  bound  to  live  in  chastity. 
For  it  is  only  meet  that  they  who  are  to  preach 
purity  to  others,  should  themselves  lead  spotless 
lives.  Hence  Dionysius  (III.  Cap.  Coziest . Hierarch.) 
says  that  from  the  abundance  of  their  own  chastity, 
they  must  impart  purity  to  others. 

Religious,  by  their  vow  of  obedience,  bind  them- 
selves to  submit  to  one  superior;  but  a bishop 
constitutes  himself  the  servant  of  all  of  whom  he 
undertakes  the  care.  He  is  bound  to  imitate  the 
example  of  St.  Paul,  who  tells  us  that  he  sought 
not  that  which  was  profitable  to  himself  but  to 
many,  that  they  might  be  saved  (1  Cor.  x.  33). 
Again  the  Apostle  says  of  himself,  “For  whereas 
I was  free  unto  all,  I made  myself  the  servant  of 
all”  (1  Cor.  ix.  19).  “For  we  preach  not  ourselves, 


PEBFECTION  OF  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  95 


but  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord;  and  ourselves  your 
servants  through  Jesus”  (2  Cor.  iv.  5).  Hence  it 
is  the  custom  for  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  to  subscribe 
himself  as  “the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God.” 
We  must  conclude,  then,  that  the  episcopal  office 
is  a condition  of  higher  perfection  than  is  the 
religious  life. 

Dionysius,  again,  writes  (VI.  Cap.  Eccles.  Hierarch.), 
“The  monastic  state  is  not  intended  to  lead  others 
forward,  but  is  ordained  for  its  own  sake,  and 
remains  on  its  own  peculiar  and  sacred  basis.”1 
Bishops,  on  the  other  hand,  are  under  the  obligation 
of  guiding  others  to  God.  St.  Gregory,  writing  on 
the  book  of  Ezechiel,  says  that,  “ no  sacrifice  is 
more  acceptable  to  God  than  is  zeal  for  souls.” 
These  words  clearly  point  out  that  the  episcopal  is, 
of  all  states,  the  most  perfect.  This  conclusion 
is  further  proved  by  the  custom  of  the  church, 
which,  when  a religious  is  appointed  to  a bishopric, 
releases  him  from  obedience  to  the  superiors  of  his 
order.  For  this  could  not  be  done,  were  not  the 
episcopal  state  one  of  greater  perfection  than  the 
religious.  In  acting  thus  the  Church  of  God  obeys 
the  counsel  of  St.  Paul,  “ Be  ye  therefore  zealous 
for  the  better  gifts”  (1  Cor.  xii.  31). 

1 Dionysius  here  speaks  of  the  purely  monastic  or  contemp- 
lative orders.  The  active  orders,  as  will  be  seen  later  on,  and 
more  fully  in  the  Apology  for  the  Religious  Orders , to  which  we 
have  referred,  were  instituted  to  “lead  others  forward.” — Editor. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

AN  ANSWER  TO  CERTAIN  ARGUMENTS  WHICH  MAY 
SEEM  TO  CALL  IN  QUESTION  THE  PERFECTION 
OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  STATE 

It  is  not  difficult  to  answer  the  objections  brought 
against  the  perfection  of  the  Episcopal  office.  The 
perfection  of  fraternal  charity  springs,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  the  perfection  of  the  love  of  God,  which 
in  the  hearts  of  some  men  is  so  vigorous  that  it 
urges  them,  not  only  to  desire  to  enjoy  God  and 
to  serve  Him,  but  likewise  for  His  sake  to  assist 
their  neighbours.  Hence  in  the  2nd  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  (v.  13),  St.  Paul  says,  “Whether  we  be 
transported  in  mind  ” (by  contemplation)  “ it  is  to 
God  ” ( i.e . to  the  glory  of  God),  “ or  whether  we  be 
Sober  ” (in  condescension  to  you)  “ it  is  to  you,”  i.e . 
for  your  profit ; “ for  the  love  of  Christ  presseth  us,” 
“ causing  us  (as  the  Gloss  explains)  to  do  all  things 
for  you.”  For  it  is  clear  that  it  is  a greater  sign  of 
love  if  a man,  for  the  sake  of  his  friend,  be  willing 
to  serve  another,  than  if  he  will  only  render  service 
to  his  friend  in  his  own  person. 

The  argument  drawn  from  the  comparison  be- 

96 


i 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  PEKFECTION  97 

tween  the  perfection  of  the  contemplative  and  the 
active  life,  does  not  seem  to  have  much  bearing  on 
the  point  in  question.  A bishop,  being  singled  out 
as  mediator  between  God  and  men,  must,  as  minister 
to  men,  be  pre-eminent  in  the  active  life.  At  the 
same  time  he  must  excel  in  contemplation,  in  order 
to  draw  from  God  the  spiritual  wisdom  which  he  is 
bound  to  impart  to  those  committed  to  his  care. 
Hence  St.  Gregory  says  (in  Pastoral)?-  “A  bishop 
should  be  foremost  in  action,  and  he  should  be 
raised  above  all  men  by  contemplation.  He  should 
be  solicitous,  lest,  on  account  of  external  occupation, 
he  relax  in  his  zeal  for  spiritual  affairs ; neither 
should  his  care  for  spiritual  things  lessen  his 
diligence  concerning  such  as  are  temporal.”  It 
may  happen,  indeed,  that  a man  occupied  in  the 
service  of  others,  may  suffer  some  loss  of  sweetness 
in  contemplation ; but  this  very  sacrifice  is  a proof 
of  the  perfection  of  his  love  of  God.  For  if,  for 
the  sake  of  doing  service  to  one  whom  we  love, 
we  deprive  ourselves  of  the  happiness  of  being  in 
his  presence,  we  show  stronger  affection  for  him, 
than  if  we  endeavoured  always  to  enjoy  his  com- 
pany. St.  Paul  writing  to  the  Komans  (ix.  3)  says, 
“ Neither  death,  nor  life  shall  separate  me  from 

1 “Liber  regulae  pastoralis.”  St.  Thomas  uses  an  abbreviated 
form  of  the  title  of  this  most  excellent  work  of  St.  Gregory. — 
Editor. 


0 


98 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


the  love  of  God  ” ; he  then  continues,  “ I wished 
myself  to  be  anathema  from  Christ  for  my 
brethren.”  St.  Chrysostom,  in  his  book,  Be  com - 
punctione  cordis  has  the  following  commentary  on 
these  words : “ The  love  of  Christ  had  thus  so 
completely  conquered  the  heart  of  this  Apostle, 
that,  in  order  to  please  Him,  he  was  ready  to 
sacrifice  His  presence,  which  to  him  was  the  thing 
dear  above  all  others.” 

The  third  objection  brought  against  the  perfection 
of  the  episcopal  state  admits  of  a double  answer. 
First,  although  a bishop  holds  certain  possessions, 
he  does  not  regard  them  as  his  own ; but  he  dis- 
tributes them  as  common  property ; and  thus  he 
does  not  violate  evangelical  perfection.  On  this 
point  Prosper  says  (XII.  quaestione  I.),  “ It  is  right 
to  possess  the  property  of  the  Church  and  to 

renounce  one’s  own  belongings  for  the  love  of 

perfection.”  Again  in  the  same  chapter,  after 
quoting  the  example  of  St.  Paulinus,  he  says,  “By 
this  action  we  clearly  learn,  that  it  befits  us  to 
part  with  our  own  possessions  for  the  sake  of 

perfection,  and  that,  without  any  imperfection,  we 
may  possess  the  common  property  of  the  Church.” 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  if  anyone  has  charge 
of  the  goods  of  the  Church,  and  does  not  gain  any 
personal  profit  from  them,  but  only  acts  as  a 

steward  or  dispenser,  he  does  not  fail  in  evan- 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  PERFECTION  99 


gelical  perfection.  Were  this  so,  abbots  and 
superiors  of  monasteries  would  sin  against  their 
vow  of  poverty  and  would  fail  in  religious  per- 
fection, which  cannot  at  all  be  admitted.  Of 
course,  if  a bishop,  not  content  with  dispensing 
the  revenues  of  his  see,  should  make  himself  their 
owner  by  using  them  to  his  own  personal  profit, 
he  would  plainly  be  the  possessor  of  private 
property ; and  he  would,  thus,  fail  to  attain  to 
the  perfection  of  those  who  renounce  everything, 
and  live  with  nothing  of  their  own.  But,  it  may 
be  thought  that  bishops  fail  in  the  evangelical 
perfection  set  forth  in  the  words,  “ If  thou  wilt  be 
perfect,”  etc.  (Matt.  xix.  21),  since  they  are  not 
only  at  liberty  to  possess  the  property  of  their 
Church,  but  are  also  free  to  keep  their  own  patri- 
mony, and  to  dispose  of  it  by  will.  This  objection 
is  easily  answered,  if  the  preceding  remarks  be 
called  to  mind.  As  we  have  already  said,  the  re- 
nunciation of  riches  does  not  constitute  perfection ; 
it  is  merely  a means  to  it.  It  is  quite  possible 
for  a man  to  acquire  perfection,  without  actually 
giving  up  what  he  possesses.  This  may  be  made 
clear  by  the  following  example.  Our  Lord,  amongst 
other  counsels  of  perfection,  gave  this : “ If  one 
strike  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  also 
the  other:  and  if  a man  will  contend  with  thee 
in  judgment,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  go  thy 


100 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


cloak  also  unto  him.  And  whomsoever  will  force 
thee  one  mile,  go  with  him  other  two  ” (Matt.  v.  39). 
But  even  the  perfect  do  not  obey  these  words 
literally.  Nay,  Our  Lord  Himself  when  He  suffered 
a blow  on  the  face,  did  not  turn  His  other  cheek. 
He  said,  “ If  I have  spoken  evil,  give  testimony  of 
the  evil,  but  if  well  why  strikest  thou  me  ? ” 
(John  xviii.  23).  Neither  did  St.  Paul,  when  he 
was  smitten,  offer  his  cheek.  He  exclaimed,  “God 
shall  strike  thee,  thou  whited  wall  ” (Acts  xxiii.  3). 

Hence,  we  see  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  these 
counsels  should  be  actually  obeyed ; but,  as  St. 
Augustine  says  in  his  book  De  Sermone  Domini  in 
Monte , they  are  to  be  understood  as  signifying  the 
preparation  of  the  heart.  For,  perfection  consists 
in  a man’s  readiness  to  perform  any  work  that  may 
be  required  of  him.  In  like  manner  St.  Augustine 
cites  in  his  book  Quaestionum  Evangelii  (and  we 
find  the  same  in  Decretis , Dist.  xli.),  Our  Lord’s 
words,  “ Wisdom  is  justified  by  all  her  children,” 
as  proving  that  the  sons  of  wisdom  understand  that 
justice  consists  neither  in  eating  nor  in  abstinence, 
but  in  suffering  want  with  patience.  St.  Paul  ex- 
presses the  same  thought  when  he  writes  to  the 
Philippians  (iv.  12),  “ I know  both  how  to  abound 
and  to  suffer  need.” 

Religious  learn  this  serenity  and  patience  in 
bearing  poverty,  by  their  practice  of  possessing 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  PERFECTION  101 


nothing.  Bishops,  on  the  other  hand,  may  attain  to 
it,  by  exercising  solicitude  about  their  church,  and 
by  fraternal  charity,  which  ought  to  make  them 
willing  not  merely  to  sacrifice  their  money,  but, 
if  need  be,  their  very  life  for  their  flocks.  St. 
Chrysostom  says  in  his  Dialogue , “Monks  do  in 
truth  wage  a severe  war.”  He  then  adds,  “ For  the 
fasting,  and  vigils,  and  other  penitential  exercises 
of  the  monastic  state  are  very  hard  and  painful. 
But  in  the  episcopal  state,  the  conflict  is  more  felt 
by  the  soul  than  by  the  body.”  The  saint  further, 
by  way  of  example,  draws  a comparison  between 
a craftsman,  who,  by  means  of  various  instruments, 
produces  marvellous  pieces  of  mechanism,  and  a 
philosopher  who  displays  his  skill  merely  by  the 
operations  of  his  intellect. 

It  may  be  urged,  that  bishops  are  bound  to 
practise  this  perfection  of  the  renunciation  of 
riches,  not  in  will  alone,  but  also  in  deed.  For, 
when  Our  Lord  sent  His  disciples  on  their  mission, 
He  said  to  them : “ Do  not  possess  gold,  nor  silver, 
nor  money  in  your  purses : nor  scrip  for  your 
journey,  nor  two  coats,  nor  shoes,  nor  a staff” 
(Matt.  x.  9).  Now,  as  bishops  are  the  successors  of 
the  Apostles,  they  ought  to  obey  the  precept  given 
to  the  Apostles.  But  this  conclusion  is  clearly 
fallacious.  For  some  of  the  most  saintly  bishops 
of  the  Church,  whose  holiness  is  beyond  question, 


102 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


such  as  Athanasius,  Hilary,  and  many  of  their 
successors,  have  not  observed  this  command  of  Our 
Lord.  As  St.  Augustine  says,  in  his  book  Contra 
mendacium , “We  must  not  only  bear  in  mind  the 
precepts  of  God,  but  we  must  also  be  attentive  to 
the  lives  and  customs  of  the  just.”  For,  although 
we  fail  to  understand  many  things  that  are  written 
for  us,  we  can  gather  their  meaning  from  the  deeds 
of  the  saints,  and  thus  learn  in  what  sense  we  are 
to  interpret  them.  It  is  on  this  account,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  Who  speaks  by  the  Scriptures,  inspires 
the  actions  of  the  Saints.  St.  Paul  tells  us  the 
same  truth  when  he  says,  “Whosoever  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God  ” 
(Rom.  viii.  14).  Hence,  we  have  no  right  to  con- 
clude that  what  is  commonly  done  by  holy  men,  is 
contrary  to  the  Divine  commandments.  Our  Lord, 
in  the  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  already  quoted,  gives 
a reason  for  His  words  to  His  Apostles,  bidding 
them  not  to  possess  anything,  nor  to  take  anything 
on  their  journey.  “The  labourer,”  He  says,  “is 
worthy  of  his  hire.”  Thus  He  gives  a permission, 
not  a command,  to  His  disciples,  to  accept  hospit- 
ality. Therefore,  if  any  one  of  them  desired  not  to 
avail  himself  of  this  permission,  but  preferred  to 
carry  provisions  with  him,  he  would  not  be  dis- 
obeying a precept  of  his  Master.  For  there  is 
a difference  between  disobeying  a command,  and 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  PEBFECTION  103 


omitting  (after  the  example  of  St.  Paul)  to  make 
use  of  a permission. 

We  may  further  understand  these  words  of 
Christ  to  the  Apostles,  by  remembering  that  He 
was  sending  them  to  preach  to  the  Jews,  with 
whom  it  was  customary  for  the  teachers  to  live 
by  the  contributions  of  their  disciples.  Our  Lord 
(says  St.  Chrysostom)  desired,  first,  that  His  dis- 
ciples should  be  above  suspicion,  and  should  not 
be  thought  to  be  preaching  for  the  sake  of  gain. 
Secondly,  He  wished  them  to  be  free  from  anxiety 
about  material  things.  Thirdly,  He  willed  that 
they  should,  by  experience,  learn  that,  without 
anxiety  on  their  part,  His  power  could  provide 
them  with  all  that  they  might  need.  But  He  acted 
differently  on  the  Eve  of  His  Passion,  when  He 
was  about  to  send  them  forth  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles.  For,  then,  He  said  to  them,  “When 
I sent  you  without  purse,  and  scrip,  and  shoes,  did 
you  want  anything  ? But  they  said : nothing. 
Then  said  He  unto  them : But  now  he  that  hath 
a purse  let  him  take  it,  and  likewise  a scrip  ” 
(Luke  xxii).  These  words  prove  that  bishops,  as 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  are  not  bound  to  possess 
nothing,  nor  to  carry  nothing  with  them  on  their 
journeys. 


CHAPTEE  XIX 

THE  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE,  ALTHOUGH  A STATE  OF 
GREATER  PERFECTION  THAN  IS  THE  RELIGIOUS 
LIFE,  IS,  NEVERTHELESS,  NOT  TO  BE  COVETED 

St.  Paul  exhorts  the  Corinthians  (1  Ep.  xii.  31)  to 
he  “ zealous  for  the  better  gifts.”  Seeing,  then,  how 
far  the  episcopal  office  exceeds,  in  perfection,  the 
religious  life,  ought  men  not  to  be  more  eager  to  be 
made  bishops,  than  to  become  religious  ? If  any- 
one who  asks  this  question  will  give  a little  con- 
sideration to  the  matter,  he  will  see  that,  while 
there  is  abundant  reason  why  the  religious  life 
should  be  desired,  the  episcopal  office,  on  the  con- 
trary, should,  by  no  means,  be  coveted.  For  he  who 
enters  religion,  renounces  himself  together  with  all 
that  belongs  to  him,  and,  for  the  love  of  God,  sub- 
mits himself  to  the  government  of  another.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  who  is  promoted  to  a bishopric, 
is  raised  to  an  exalted  position  in  God’s  kingdom 
upon  earth.  Consequently,  as  honour  and  power 
are  not  rightfully  bestowed  on  any  save  on  the 
best  among  men,  it  would  be  presumptuous  to 
aspire  to  such  a dignity. 

104 


NOT  TO  COVET  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  105 


St.  Augustine,  in  chapter  xix.  De  civitate  Dei,  says 
that,  “ the  Apostle  wished  to  explain  what  is  meant 
by  the  episcopate,  for  it  is  a title  not  of  honour 
but  of  labour.  The  Latin  word  episcopus  (from 
which  is  derived  our  word  episcopate)  is  precisely 
the  same  word  as  the  Greek  epislcopos,  signifying 
an  overseer  or  superintendent.  Hence  he  is  no 
true  bishop  who  desires  to  be  placed  above  others, 
rather  than  to  be  of  use  to  them.  We  need  not 
disguise  the  truth,  that  the  episcopate  is  accom- 
panied by  honourable  leisure.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
a sublime  post,  essential  in  the  government  of  a 
people,  and  so  much  is  required  for  the  due  per- 
formance of  the  duties  connected  with  it,  that  no 
man  possessed  of  common  modesty,  could  aspire 
to  such  an  office.  For,  although  the  love  of  truth 
may  seek  holy  leisure ; the  necessity  of  charity 
accepts  fitting  employment;  and  if  no  one  lay  this 
burden  upon  us,  we  must  devote  ourselves  to  truth, 
both  of  perception  and  study.  But  if  the  burthen 
be  imposed  upon  us,  we  must  accept  it  as  a duty 
of  charity.”  St.  Chrysostom,  commenting  on  the 
words  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  “ the  rulers 
of  the  Gentiles  have  dominion  over  them,”  says  : 
“ It  is  well  to  wish  for  a good  thing,  because  it 
be  according  to  our  will,  and  is  our  reward;  but 
it  is  vanity  to  desire  a supremacy  of  honour.  The 
Apostle  was  not  exalted  by  God  because  he  was 
p 


106 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


an  apostle,  but  because  he  duly  accomplished  the 
work  of  his  apostolate.  Worthiness  of  life  is  to 
be  desired,  not  superior  dignity.” 

We  must,  further,  remark  that  the  religious  life 
leads  indeed  to  perfection,  but  does  not  presuppose 
it;  whereas  the  episcopal  dignity  presupposes  per- 
fection. For  he  who  enters  the  episcopal  state 
takes  upon  himself  the  office  of  a spiritual  teacher. 
As  St.  Paul  says  (1  Tim.  ii.  7),  “ I am  appointed 
a preacher,  an  Apostle  (I  say  the  truth,  I lie  not), 
a teacher  of  the  Gentiles,  in  faith  and  truth.”  It 
would  be  an  absurdity  to  undertake  to  teach  others 
to  be  perfect,  without  previous  personal  experience 
of  perfection.  St.  Gregory  says  in  his  Pastoral , 
“ The  deeds  of  a bishop  ought  to  surpass  those 
of  his  flock,  as  greatly  as  his  life  is  removed  from 
theirs.”  This  distinction  is  clearly  expressed  by 
Our  Lord.  For,  when  He  gave  the  counsel  of 
poverty,  He  merely  said,  “ If  thou  wilt  be  perfect, 
go,  sell  what  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor.”  This 
shows  that  the  practice  of  poverty  does  not  pre- 
suppose perfection,  although  it  leads  men  to  it. 
But  when  He  gave  St.  Peter  supremacy  over  his 
brethren,  He  said,  “Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou 
me  ” ? And  when  St.  Peter  answered : “ Thou 
knowest  that  I love  thee,”  Christ  replied,  in  turn, 
“ Feed  my  sheep.” 

Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  elevation  to  the 


NOT  TO  COVET  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  107 


episcopate  assumes  perfection  in  the  person  thus 
honoured ; and  that  it  would  be  the  height  of 
presumption,  for  any  man  to  consider  himself  per- 
fect. Even  St.  Paul  says,  “ Not  as  though  I had 
already  attained  or  were  already  perfect  ” (Philipp, 
iii.  12).  Again,  in  the  same  chapter,  he  adds,  “Let 
us,  therefore,  as  many  as  are  perfect,  be  thus 
minded.”  To  desire  perfection,  and  to  strive  to 
follow  after  it,  is  not  presumption.  It  is  that  holy 
zeal  to  which  St.  Paul  exhorts  us,  saying,  “Be  ye, 
therefore,  zealous  for  the  better  gifts  ” (1  Cor.  xii, 
31).  Hence,  it  is  praiseworthy  to  wish  to  embrace 
the  religious  life,  although  a desire  for  the  episcopate 
is  gross  presumption.  St.  Gregory  says,  in  his 
Pastoral , “ He  who  has  refused  a bishopric  has  not 
completely  resisted  it;  and  he  who  has  willed  to 
be  raised  to  it,  has  first  seen  himself  cleansed  by 
the  stone  of  the  altar.”  By  these  words  we  are 
to  understand,  that  a man,  chosen  for  the  episcopate, 
should  not  absolutely  refuse  this  honour.  Nor  yet 
should  he  aspire  to  it,  unless  he  knows  that  he 
be  cleansed  in  preparation  for  it.  Nor  should 
anyone,  who  is  not  thus  purified,  dare  to  approach 
the  sacred  mysteries.  Neither,  if  he  be  chosen  by 
divine  grace,  for  this  dignity,  ought  he,  through 
pride  disguised  as  humility,  to  decline  to  accept  it. 
But,  as  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  any  man  to 


108 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


know  whether  he  be  purified  or  not,  the  safest 
course  is  to  decline  a bishopric. 

Another  point  must  be  considered  in  our  com- 
parison between  the  religious  and  episcopal  state. 
The  religious  life  implies  a renunciation  of  earthly 
possessions ; whereas  a bishopric  is  accompanied  by 
great  additional  wealth.  They  who  become  religious 
give  up  all  they  possess,  thus  showing  that  they 
seek  not  temporal  but  spiritual  goods.  They  who 
undertake  the  episcopal  office  are  frequently  wont 
to  think  more  of  temporal,  than  of  eternal  riches. 
St.  Gregory  says  in  his  Pastoral , “that  the  truly 
praiseworthy  condition  under  which  to  accept  a 
bishopric,  would  be,  if  a man  were  to  know,  as  a 
certainty,  that  such  an  office  would  involve  severe 
torture.”  Again,  he  says,  “ It  is  not  every  man 
who  loves  the  sanctity  of  the  episcopal  office.  But 
that  sanctity  is  completely  ignored  by  those,  who, 
aspiring  to  such  a dignity,  are  entranced  by  the 
idea  of  having  others  subject  to  them,  are  rejoiced 
at  the  thought  of  being  praised,  set  their  hearts 
on  being  honoured,  and  rejoice  at  the  prospect  of 
affluence.  In  such  a case  as  that,  men  are  coveting 
worldly  advancement  under  the  disguise  of  an  office, 
in  which  it  is  their  duty  to  try  to  extirpate  earthly 
ambition.” 

Again,  we  must  remember  that  bishops  are  ex- 
posed to  many  risks.  We  may,  on  this  point,  again 


NOT  TO  COVET  EPISCOPAL  OFFICE  109 


quote  St.  Gregory.  He  writes  in  his  Pastoral , “ It 
often  happens  that  in  the  office  of  governing  others, 
a man  loses  the  habit  of  good  works,  which  he 
practised  in  private  life.  For  on  a calm  sea,  even 
an  inexperienced  seaman  can  steer  a vessel;  whereas, 
in  a gale,  the  most  experienced  mariner  may  lose  his 
bearings.  And  may  not  a position  of  great  power 
be  fitly  compared  to  a tempest  of  the  mind,  where 
the  heart  is  incessantly  rocked  to  and  fro  by  waves 
of  thought,  to  be  dashed  to  pieces  (as  by  rocks) 
by  some  sudden  excess  of  word  or  deed  ? ” David 
is  quoted  by  St.  Gregory  as  an  example  of  the 
dangers  to  which  men  in  an  exalted  position  are 
exposed.  “ David,”  he  says,  “ whose  every  act  was 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  the  Supreme  Judge,  became, 
after  he  was  raised  to  kingly  magnificence,  puffed 
up  with  pride,  and  so  cruelly  hardened,  as  to  cause 
the  death  of  a man.  He,  who,  in  former  times, 
refused  to  slay  his  captured  enemy,  was,  in  his 
later  days,  so  led  away  by  his  desire  for  a woman, 
that,  to  the  detriment  of  his  own  army,  he  artfully 
caused  the  death  of  a most  loyal  soldier.” 

He  who  embraces  the  religious  life  escapes  the 
danger  of  sin.  Hence  St.  Jerome,  speaking  in  the 
person  of  a monk,  writes,  in  his  Epistle  against 
Vigilantius , “When  I forsake  the  world,  I shall 
not  be  overcome,  because  I have  fled  it;  but  I 
shall  flee  from  it,  lest  by  it  I should  be  overcome. 


110 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


There  is  no  security  in  sleeping  near  a serpent; 
for,  though  perchance  it  may  not  molest  me,  it 
may  on  the  other  hand  inflict  on  me  a grievous 
wound.  Thus,  it  is  an  act  of  prudence  to  enter 
religious  life,  in  order  to  avoid  the  occasions  of 
sin.  But  he  who  aspires  to  the  episcopate,  has 
either  the  extreme  presumption  to  consider  that 
he  will  be  safe  in  the  midst  of  dangers,  or  else 
he  is  so  heedless  of  his  salvation,  that  he  cares 
not  to  escape  from  the  occasions  of  sinning.” 
Hence,  we  must  conclude,  that,  although  the 
episcopal  office  be  a state  of  perfection,  it  cannot, 
without  the  sin  of  covetousness,  be  desired. 


4 


CHAPTER  XX 

ARGUMENTS  USED  BY  CERTAIN  MEN  TO  PROVE 
THAT  PARISH  PRIESTS  AND  ARCHDEACONS  ARE 
IN  A STATE  OF  HIGHER  PERFECTION  THAN  ARE 
RELIGIOUS.  ANSWERS  TO  THESE  ARGUMENTS 

There  are  certain  men,  who,  not  content  with 
teaching  that  the  episcopate  is  a condition  of 
superior  perfection  to  the  religious  life,  also  main- 
tain that  deans,  parish  priests,  archdeacons,  and  all 
others  entrusted  with  the  care  of  souls,  are  in  a 
more  perfect  state  than  are  religious.  They  base 
their  arguments  on  various  grounds. 

First,  they  quote  the  following  words  of  St. 
Chrysostom  ( Dialogue , lib.  VI.).  “Let  any  man 
show  me  a monk  resembling  even  Elias,  and  let 
us  grant  that  this  monk,  living  alone,  without 
annoyance  or  vexation  of  any  kind,  is  not  troubled 
by  temptation,  and  does  not  fall  into  grave  sin. 
I tell  you,  nevertheless,  that  such  a man  is  not  to 
be  compared  to  one,  who,  although  the  minister 
of  the  people,  and  laden  with  the  sins  of  men, 
perseveres  with  energy  and  fidelity.”  These  words 

ill 


112 


THE  EELIGIOUS  STATE 


naturally  convey  the  impression  that  no  monk, 
howsoever  perfect  he  may  be,  can  bear  comparison 
with  a priest  who  is  entrusted  with  the  cure  of 
souls,  and  who  discharges  his  trust  with  diligence. 
Again,  St.  Chrysostom  says,  “Were  I given  my 
choice  as  to  whether  I would  prefer  to  serve  God 
in  the  functions  of  the  priesthood,  or  in  monastic 
solitude,  I should,  without  hesitation,  choose  the 
first  of  these  conditions.”  Hence  the  cure  of  souls 
is,  indubitably,  to  be  preferred  to  religious  solitude, 
which  is  reckoned  as  the  most  perfect  state  of  life. 

Again,  St.  Augustine,  in  his  epistle  to  Valerius, 
says,  “ Do  thou,  in  thy  religious  prudence,  mark 
well  the  following  truth.  Of  all  things  in  the 
world,  especially  in  our  days,  there  is  nothing  so 
easy,  so  pleasant,  so  attractive  to  human  nature, 
as  to  be  a perfunctory  and  time-serving  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon.  Yet,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  no 
sight  is  so  execrable,  so  sad,  or  so  worthy  of  con- 
demnation, as  these  sacred  offices  fulfilled  in  such 
a manner.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing 
in  life,  especially  in  our  days,  more  difficult,  more 
laborious  or  more  beset  by  danger,  than  is  the  office 
of  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon.  Yet,  in  the  eyes  of 
God,  no  one  presents  a more  glorious  spectacle, 
than  he  who,  in  such  an  office,  fights  manfully, 
according  to  the  precepts  of  our  Sovereign  Master.” 
Hence,  the  religious  life  is  not  a more  perfect  state 


PAEISH  PEIESTS  AND  AECHDEACONS  113 


than  is  that  of  priests  or  deacons,  who  have  the 
cure  of  souls,  and  whose  duty  it  is  to  mingle  with 
men. 

Again,  St.  Augustine  says  to  Aurelius,  “ It  is, 
indeed,  lamentable,  if  we  puff  monks  up  with  pride, 
and  decry  the  dignity  of  the  clergy,  to  whose  order 
we  belong.  Shall  we  suffer  ignorant  people  to  say 
of  us : ‘a  bad  monk  will  make  a good  cleric,’  when 
as  we  know  that  even  a good  monk  is  not  always 
a good  cleric  ? ” The  perfection  of  a good  cleric 
is,  therefore,  greater  than  is  that  of  a good  monk. 
The  same  Saint  had  previously  written,  “We  must 
not  open  a way  to  the  servants  of  God  (i.e.,  to 
monks),  whereby  they  may  think  that  it  may  be 
easier  for  them  to  be  chosen  for  some  better  office 
(■ ie .,  for  some  clerical  post),  if,  by  such  a step, 
leaving  their  monastery  they  should  grow  worse.” 
The  clerical  office  is,  consequently,  better  than  the 
monastic  state.  In  the  same  spirit  St.  Jerome 
writes  to  Eusticus,  “ So  live  in  thy  monastery,  that 
thou  mayest  deserve  to  be  made  a cleric.”  The 
clerical  office  is,  therefore,  superior  to  the  monastic 
life. 

Again,  it  is  not  permissible  to  pass  from  a higher 
to  a lower  state.  Nevertheless,  it  is  lawful  to  pass 
from  the  monastic  life  to  that  of  a cleric,  entrusted 
with  the  cure  of  souls.  We  learn  this  fact  from 
the  words  of  Pope  Gelasius  (XVI.  quaestione  I.), 
Q 


114 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


“ If  there  be  any  monk,  who,  by  virtue  of  his  holy 
life,  should  seem  worthy  to  be  raised  to  the  priest- 
hood, and  if  the  abbot,  under  whose  rule  such  a 
monk  is  fighting  in  the  army  of  Christ,  should  beg 
this  favour  for  him  from  the  bishop,  that  monk 
ought  to  be  chosen.  Further  a monk  so  elected, 
whether  by  the  bishop  or  the  people,  must  dis- 
creetly and  uprightly  fulfil  all  the  duties  of  the 
priesthood  in  the  place  wherein  it  shall  have  seemed 
good  to  ordain  him.”  Several  other  rules  about  the 
same  matter  are  laid  down  in  this  chapter  and  in 
dist.  J/,7.  Hence,  it  is  plain  to  all  men,  that  the 
state  of  any  clerics,  and  especially  of  such  as  have 
the  care  of  souls,  is  superior  to  the  religious  life. 

Now  the  reasons  for  these  propositions  will  be 
easily  perceived,  if  we  recall  to  mind  what  has 
already  been  said.  We  have  seen  that  a perfect 
work  is  one  thing,  and  a perfect  state  another. 
The  state  of  perfection  does  nothing  save  impose 
perpetual  obligation  of  accomplishing  those  things 
which  pertain  to  perfection.  Now,  many  accom- 
plish the  works  of  perfection,  without  any  vow ; thus, 
many  observe  continence  and  practise  poverty. 

We  must  also  remember  that,  in  speaking  of 
priests  and  archdeacons  charged  with  the  cure  of 
souls,  two  points  must  be  taken  into  consideration, 
to  wit,  the  office  of  the  cure  of  souls,  and  the  dignity 
of  their  orders.  Now,  as  parish  priests  and  arch- 


PARISH  PRIESTS  AND  ARCHDEACONS  115 


deacons  often  leave  their  parishes  and  archi- 
diaconates  to  go  into  religion,  it  is  clear,  that,  by 
accepting  the  cure  of  souls,  they  do  not  contract 
any  perpetual  obligation.  But,  from  what  has  been 
already  said,  we  know  that  no  state  of  perfection 
can  exist  without  a perpetual  obligation.  Hence, 
we  cannot  say  that  archdeacons,  or  parish  priests, 
or  candidates  for  ordination,  have  embraced  a state 
of  perfection,  any  more  than  we  can  say  that 
novices,  before  their  profession,  have  embraced 
this  state. 

It  may,  however,  happen,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  that  a man  who  does  not  live  in  a state 
of  perfection  may  perform  works  of  perfection,  and 
may  be  perfect  according  to  the  habit  of  charity. 
Thus,  archdeacons  and  parish  priests  may  be  perfect 
according  to  the  habit  of  charity,  and  may  share  in 
certain  offices  of  perfection,  although  they  are  not 
living  in  a perfect  state.  A token  that  they  are 
not  living  in  a state  of  perfection  lies  in  the  fact, 
that,  when  a man  is  deputed  to,  or  bound  in 
perpetuity  to,  some  office,  this  obligation  is  im- 
posed upon  him  with  the  accompaniment  of  some 
ecclesiastical  solemnity.  For  instance,  bishops  are 
consecrated,  and  religious  received  to  profession  by 
an  ancient  rite  of  the  Church,  as  Dionysius  ob- 
serves (de  Ecclesiast.  Hierarch.  Cap.  VI.).  Nothing 
of  the  sort,  however,  takes  place  at  the  election 


116 


THE  EELIGIOUS  STATE 


of  an  archdeacon  or  parish  priest.  He  is  invested, 
merely,  with  a ring,  or  some  other  symbol  of  the 
same  description.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  no  arch- 
deacon or  parish  priest  embraces  a state  implying 
perpetual  obligation.  This  conclusion  will  enable 
us  easily  to  answer  the  arguments  wherewith  this 
chapter  began. 

When  St.  Chrysostom  says,  “Even  if  you  can 
show  me  a monk,  who  vies  with  Elias  in  holiness, 
he  is  not  to  be  compared  to  a priest  who  is  compelled 
to  bear  the  sins  of  his  people,”  it  is  clear  that  the 
Saint  is  not  drawing  a comparison  between  the 
priesthood  and  the  religious  state.  He  only  wishes 
(as  we  shall  see  if  we  read  the  context  of  the 
words)  to  point  out  that  the  difficulty  of  perse- 
verance in  virtue,  is  far  greater  for  one  set  over 
a flock,  than  for  a monk  in  solitude.  St.  Chrysos- 
tom does  not  say  absolutely,  that  a monk  is  not 
to  be  compared  to  a priest  who  bears  the  sins 
of  his  people  upon  his  shoulders.  What  he  says, 
is,  that  the  perseverance  of  a monk,  who,  living 
a solitary  life,  is  not  tempted,  and  does  not  fall 
into  grievous  sin,  is  not  to  be  compared  to  the 
constancy  of  a priest  who  perseveres,  with  valour 
and  fidelity,  though  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  his 
people.  The  courage  of  self  - defence  is  chiefly 
shown  in  positions  of  great  danger.  Hence,  St. 
Chrysostom  prefaces  the  remark  which  we  have 


PAEISH  PEIESTS  AND  AECHDEACONS  117 


quoted,  by  saying,  “The  mariner  who  is  able  to 
save  his  vessel  when  she  is  in  danger  of  being 
submerged  by  a tempest,  is  deservedly  held  by 
all  men  to  be  an  experienced  seaman.”  In  the 
same  manner  we  may  say,  that  he  who  is  able 
to  live  uprightly  in  the  midst  of  bad  men,  gives 
proof  of  greater  virtue  than  he  who  leads  a worthy 
life  amongst  good  men.  Hence,  St.  Peter  says, 
in  praise  of  Lot  (2  Pet.  ii.  8),  that  “ in  sight  and 
hearing  he  was  just : dwelling  among  them,  who, 
from  day  to  day,  vexed  the  just  soul  with  unjust 
works.”  But  we  cannot  say,  that  to  live  among 
wicked  men  belongs  to  the  state  of  perfection, 
since,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, prudence  instructs  us  to  shun  their  company. 
We  see,  then,  that  the  state  of  priests,  charged 
with  the  care  of  souls,  is  not  more  perfect;  but 
that  it  is  more  exposed  to  danger,  than  is  that  of 
religious. 

This  gives  us  the  key  to  those  other  words  of 
St.  Chrysostom  which  were  quoted  above,  “ If 
I were  given  my  choice  of  pleasing  God  in  the 
performance  of  the  duties  of  the  priesthood,  or  in 
monastic  solitude,  I should  unhesitatingly  choose 
to  please  Him  in  the  priestly  office.”  The  Saint  does 
not  say  that  he  would  rather  be  a priest  than  a 
monk,  but  that  he  would  prefer  to  please  God  rather 
as  a priest  than  as  a monk.  For,  it  is  more  difficult 


118 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


to  avoid  sin  in  the  performance  of  the  sacerdotal 
functions,  than  in  the  solitude  of  a monastery.  As 
we  have  before  said,  the  greater  the  perils  which 
we  encounter,  the  greater  the  virtue  that  we  exhibit. 
But,  although  a wise  man  must  desire  that  his  virtue 
were  so  solid  as  to  remain  intact  in  the  midst  of 
danger,  no  one  but  a fool  would,  on  account  of  its 
danger,  prefer  a perilous  position  to  one  more 
secure.  St.  Augustine,  in  words  already  cited, 
points  out  that  no  duties  can  be  more  laborious 
and  more  beset  by  danger,  than  are  those  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons ; though,  if  these  duties  be 
rightly  performed  they  are  the  most  agreeable  offer- 
ing that  can  be  made  to  God.  It  is  because  it  is  so 
difficult  to  avoid  sin  in  the  episcopate  or  priesthood, 
that  a virtuous  bishop  or  priest  is  so  acceptable 
to  God.  This,  however,  does  not  prove  that  the 
state  of  parish  priests  or  archdeacons,  is  one  of 
higher  perfection  than  is  that  of  religious. 

To  all  the  arguments  which  follow  those  which 
we  have  been  answering,  there  is  but  one  reply 
which  is  the  same  for  all.  In  the  quotations  given 
above,  the  authors  cited  do  not  compare  the 
religious  state  to  the  state  of  parish  priests,  but 
the  state  of  monks,  as  monks,  to  the  clerical  state. 
For  monks  are  not  necessarily  clerics.  There  are 
multitudes  of  lay  brethren.  Indeed,  in  former 
days,  almost  all  monks  were  laymen  (cf.  XYI. 


PARISH  PRIESTS  AND  ARCHDEACONS  119 


qusest.  I.).  It  is  plain  that  the  clergy  occupy  a 
higher  position  in  the  Church  than  do  laymen. 
Hence,  when  a layman  is  chosen  for  the  priesthood, 
he  is  promoted  to  a superior  rank  than  that  which 
he  already  holds;  and,  as  he  ascends  to  a higher 
position,  he  naturally  requires  more  virtue  to  be 
a good  cleric  than  to  be  a good  layman,  although, 
as  a layman,  he  was  a monk.  But  a monk  who 
becomes  a priest,  is,  at  the  same  time,  both  in  the 
clerical  and  in  the  religious  state;  just  as  a priest 
who  has  the  care  of  souls  is  invested  with  both  the 
pastorate  and  the  priesthood.  When,  therefore, 
parish  priests  are  said  to  be  in  a superior  position 
to  monks,  it  does  not  mean,  that,  regarded  merely 
as  parish  priests,  they  are  superior  to  monks.  It 
means,  that  if  they  perform  their  duties  well,  and 
live  without  sin,  they  give  proof,  as  we  have  already 
said,  of  a greater  degree  of  virtue,  than  does  a 
monk  who  lives  innocently  in  his  monastery.  But 
if  a religious  be  entrusted  with  the  care  of  souls 
in  a parish  church,  this  does  not  prove  that  the 
state  of  parish  priests,  as  parish  priests,  is  more 
perfect  than  is  that  of  religious.  For  the  religious 
who  takes  charge  of  a parish  is  not,  on  that 
account,  released  from  his  religious  life.  In  XIY. 
quaest.  I.  Be  monachis , we  find  the  following  words : 
“We  ordain  that  they,  who  after  living  long  in 
monasteries,  are  enrolled  among  the  clergy,  are  not, 


120 


THE  EELIGIOUS  STATE 


for  that  reason,  to  quit  their  former  life.”  Hence, 
there  is  no  proof,  that  the  state  of  a priest  entrusted 
with  the  cure  of  souls,  is  more  perfect  than  is  that  of 
a religious ; for,  religious  may  accept  this  same  office 
while  remaining  in  their  orders.  They,  however, 
who  are  promoted  to  the  episcopate,  ascend  to  a 
higher  position. 


CHAPTEE  XXI 

OTHER  ARGUMENTS  USED  TO  OVERTHROW  THE 
CONCLUSION  AT  WHICH  WE  HAVE  ARRIVED1 

After  I had  finished  writing  that  upon  which 
I have  just  been  engaged,  certain  objections  to  my 
arguments  came  to  my  ears  made  by  men  who  are 
too  fond  of  disputing,  to  bestow  much  reflection 
either  upon  what  they  say  or  what  they  hear.  In 
order  to  confute  their  arguments,  I must  return 
to  what  has  already  been  said. 

First,  these  objectors  endeavour  to  prove,  by 
divers  arguments,  that  archdeacons  and  parish 
priests  are  in  a higher  and  more  perfect  state  than 
are  religious.  For,  if  a priest  fall  into  sin,  he  is 
ordered  by  the  Canons  to  be  deposed  from  his  state 
(cf.  LXXXI.  distinctione  : “ Si  quis  amodo  episcopus  ” 
et  XIY.  quaest.  IV.:  “ Si  quis  oblitus Hence  he 
must  have  been  in  a certain  state,  or  he  could 

1 In  the  first  part  of  this  chapter,  as  will  he  seen,  St.  Thomas 
adduces  the  arguments  brought  against  his  thesis.  In  the  second 
part  of  this  and  in  the  succeeding  chapter  he  cites  the  objections 
made  against  the  reasons  which  he  has  given  in  support  of  his 
view.  In  the  following  chapter  he  refutes  one  and  the  other. — 
Editor. 

K 121 


122 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


not  be  deposed  from  it.  Now  a state  can  be 
used  in  a threefold  signification.  First,  it  implies 
uprightness  of  life  ; the  elect  are  spoken  of  as 
“ standing  in  justice.”  St.  Gregory  says  (VII.  Moral), 
“ They  who  sin  by  mischievous  words,  fall  from 
the  state  of  rectitude.”  Again,  a state  conveys  an 
idea  of  permanence  and  stability,  as  we  see  from 
the  words  of  St.  Gregory  (VIII.  Moral),  “ It  is  the 
care  and  protection  of  our  Creator  that  keeps  us 
in  a state  of  being.”  Again,  in  the  ninth  Homily 
(2  part)  on  Ezechiel,  “ A stone  is  square ; and,  by 
means  of  each  of  its  four  sides,  it  is  kept  in  such 
a state,  that  it  will  not  fall,  howsoever  its  position 
may  be  altered.”  State  (derived  from  stare  and 
stando)  also  signifies  greatness  or  length.  Now 
archdeacons  and  parish  priests  have  a certain 
spiritual  greatness,  since,  on  account  of  their  zeal, 
they  undertake  the  cure  of  souls.  They,  likewise, 
give  proofs  of  stability,  for  they  remain  firm  and 
constant  in  the  midst  of  dangers.  They  are  further 
upright  in  intention,  and  just  in  their  dealings. 
AVhy,  then,  should  we  deny  that  they  are  in  a state 
of  perfection  ? 

Moreover,  the  institution  of  the  religious  life 
could  not  be  detrimental  to  archdeacons  and  priests 
entrusted  with  the  care  of  souls.  Yet,  before  the 
existence  of  religious  orders,  the  clergy  were  con- 
sidered to  be  living  in  a state  of  perfection.  Thus, 


OBJECTIONS  STATED 


123 


St.  Paul  writes  to  Timothy  (1  Ep.  v.  17),  “Let 
the  priests  who  rule  well,”  to  wit  by  good  life  and 
doctrine,  “ be  esteemed  worthy  of  a double  honour  ” ; 
let  them,  that  is  to  say,  be  obeyed  in  spiritual 
matters,  and  be  provided  for  in  their  temporal 
wants.  If,  then,  before  the  existence  of  religious 
orders,  priests  were  in  a state  of  perfection,  the 
same  must  also  be  the  case  since  the  religious  life 
has  been  established. 

It  is  further  said,  that  in  the  days  of  St.  Jerome, 
the  titles  bishops  and  priests  were  synonymous.  The 
following  words  of  this  Saint  {super  Epist . ad  Titum ) 
are  quoted  in  proof  of  this  assertion:  “Formerly 
bishop  and  priest  were  one  and  the  same,  but  now, 
it  is  decreed  throughout  the  whole  world,  that  one 
man  should  be  set  over  priests,  in  order  that  the 
seeds  of  schism  may  be  extirpated.”  If,  then,  the 
episcopate  be  a state  of  greater  perfection  than 
the  religious  life,  why  is  not  the  priesthood,  like- 
wise, a state  of  greater  perfection  ? 

Again,  the  more  sublime  and  important  the 
ecclesiastical  office  to  which  a man  is  appointed, 
the  higher  his  state  is  accounted.  Now,  arch- 
deacons and  parish  priests  exercise  a more  exalted 
office  than  do  religious.  For,  although  the  con- 
templative life  be  the  safer,  the  active  life  is  by 
far  the  more  fruitful  of  the  two  (cf.  Extra  de 
renuntiatione : Nisi  cum  pridem).  It  follows,  there- 


124 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


fore,  that  parish  priests  are  in  a state  of  greater 
perfection  than  is  the  case  with  religious. 

Further,  Our  Lord  says,  “ Greater  love  than  this 
hath  no  man,  that  a man  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
friend”  (John  xv.  13).  Now,  good  parish  priests 
do  sacrifice  their  lives  for  their  flocks,  and  make 
themselves  the  servants  of  their  people.  In  this 
they  imitate  St.  Paul,  who  says  (1  Cor.  ix.  19), 
“ For,  whereas  I was  free  as  to  all,  I made  myself 
the  servant  of  all.”  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
theirs  must  be  the  greater  merit,  since  theirs  is 
the  severer  toil.  “ I have  laboured  more  abun- 
dantly than  all  they,”  says  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  15). 
And  again  he  writes,  “ Every  man  shall  receive  his 
own  reward,  according  to  his  own  labour”  (1  Cor. 
iii.  8).  Hence,  parish  priests  should  be  regarded 
as  in  a more  perfect  state  than  religious.  The 
same  must  be  said  of  archdeacons;  for  the  seven 
deacons  elected  by  the  Apostles  were  in  a state 
of  eminent  perfection.  We  are  told  (Acts  vi.  3), 
“ Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you 
seven  men  of  good  repute,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this 
business.”  On  which  words  Venerable  Bede  says 
in  his  Gloss,  “The  Apostles  designed  that  the 
Churches  should  establish  seven  deacons,  who 
should  be  in  a superior  position  to  others,  and 
who  should  stand  round  the  altar,  like  columns.” 


OBJECTIONS  STATED 


125 


If  they  were  to  be  superior  to  others,  and  if  they 
were  to  be  set  apart  as  columns  round  the  altar, 
they  must  have  been  in  a state  of  perfection.  Now, 
according  to  the  Gloss  of  Yen.  Bede,  their  repre- 
sentatives are  the  archdeacons,  who  themselves 
minister,  and  who  also  superintend  the  ministry 
of  others.  Hence,  it  would  appear  that  arch- 
deacons are  in  a state  of  higher  perfection  than 
are  the  parish  priests,  over  whom  they  are  set ; 
and  that  they  are,  consequently,  in  a more  perfect 
state  than  are  religious. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  the  holy  martyrs 
and  deacons  Lawrence  and  Vincent  were  not  in 
a state  of  perfection.  Parish  priests,  then,  and 
archdeacons  resemble  bishops,  rather  than  monks 
and  religious,  who  are  in  the  lowest  rank  of  sub- 
jection. Hence,  priests  are  sometimes  called  by 
the  name  of  bishops  as  appears  from  Acts  xx., 
“ Take  heed  to  yourselves  and  to  the  whole  flock, 
wherein  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  placed  you  bishops, 
to  rule  the  church  of  God.”  These  words  are  con- 
sidered by  the  Gloss  to  have  been  addressed  to  the 
priests  of  Ephesus.  This  is,  consequently,  a still 
further  proof  that  parish  priests  are  in  a state  of 
perfection. 

Again,  as  we  know  from  XII.  quaest.  I.,  cap. 
Expedit , that  the  administration  of  the  goods  of 
the  Church  is  not  detrimental  to  the  state  of 


126 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


perfection,  since  these  goods  are  common  property ; 
it  is  clear  that  neither  parish  priests  nor  arch- 
deacons fail  in  perfection,  because  they  have  the 
management  of  ecclesiastical  revenues.  Further- 
more, both  parish  priests  and  archdeacons  are 
bound  to  exercise  hospitality  (cf.  XLII.  distinct, 
cap.  I.),  which  a monk  cannot  do,  as  he  possesses 
nothing  of  his  own.  Therefore,  a parish  priest 
gains  more  merit  than  does  a monk.  St.  Gregory 
says  that,  “ there  is  no  sacrifice  so  agreeable  to 
God  as  zeal  for  souls.”  St.  Bernard,  likewise,  in 
his  book  De  amove  Dei , says  that, “ the  love  of  God 
is  strongest  in  him  who  draws  most  souls  to  God.” 
This  saying  applies  to  an  archdeacon,  or  parish 
priest,  but  not  to  a monk,  who  has  no  duty  of 
leading  souls  to  God. 

Further,  a patriarch  rules  in  his  patriarchate,  and 
a bishop  in  his  see.  In  the  same  manner,  an 
archdeacon  governs  in  his  archidiaconate ; and  a 
parish  priest  in  his  parish.  But  what  (with  the 
exception  of  ordinations)  does  a bishop  do  that 
a parish  priest  does  not  likewise  do  ? (cf.  dist. 
XCIII.  cap.  Legimus).  All  that  is  said,  according 
to  the  fourteen  Apostolic  rules,  about  bishops  or 
bishops  elect,  is  equally  applicable  to  parish  priests 
and  archdeacons  (LXXXI.  dist.  cap.  I.).  If,  then, 
a bishop  be  in  a state  of  greater  perfection  than 
a monk,  the  same  fact  must  be  true  of  a parish 


OBJECTIONS  STATED 


127 


priest,  and  also  of  an  archdeacon.  Again,  it  is 
appointed  (LXXXI.  dist.  cap.  Dictum  est,  et  cap. 
Si  quis  clericus),  that  a lapsed  priest  or  deacon  is 
to  be  banished  from  his  office,  and  imprisoned  in 
a monastery,  to  do  penance.  Hence,  it  would 
appear  as  though  the  condition  of  an  archdeacon 
or  parish  priest  is  truly  to  be  called  a state ; 
whereas  entrance  into  religion  is  not  a state  but 
rather  a degradation  or  downfall. 

These  are  the  chief  objections,  though  placed  in 
a somewhat  different  order,  which  I have  been  able 
to  gather  from  the  writings  of  those  who  argue 
against  me. 

As  we  have  already  shown  that  archdeacons  and 
parish  priests  are  not  in  a state  of  perfection,  we 
must  now  examine  what  answer  has  been  made  to 
the  proofs  which  we  have  brought  forward  in  support 
of  our  proposition.  It  has  been  said  that  entrance 
into  any  state  of  perfection,  is  accompanied  by  some 
solemn  rite  or  blessing ; and  that  this  is  not  the 
case  with  the  election  of  a parish  priest  or  arch- 
deacon. Now  this  is,  by  our  adversaries,  denied  on 
several  grounds.  First,  they  say  that  the  same 
words  are  used  in  the  ordination  of  a priest  as  in 
the  consecration  of  a bishop,  to  wit,  “ May  these 
hands,  0 Lord,  be  consecrated  and  sanctified,”  etc. 
When  we  point  out  that  the  head  of  a bishop  is 
anointed  with  oil,  but  that  priests  do  not  receive 


128 


THE  BELIGIOUS  STATE 


this  unction,  they  reply  that  this  fact  does  not 
touch  the  matter  in  hand ; for  kings,  who  lay  no 
- claim  to  a state  of  perfection,  are  anointed.  Again, 
they  say  that  merit  lies  not  in  consecration,  but 
in  good  works ; and  that,  when  a bad  man  is  raised 
to  the  episcopate,  he,  by  his  consecration,  incurs 
a greater  chastisement.  For  it  is  not  they  who 
receive  the  greatest  honour  who  are  the  most 
righteous,  but  they  are  the  greatest  whose  justice 
is  greatest  (cf.  dist.  cap.  Multi).  And  in  the  same 
distinction  it  is  remarked,  that,  “ it  is  not  places  nor 
offices  which  give  us  access  to  our  Creator,  but  that 
virtue  unites  us  to  Him;  whereas  sin  separates  us 
from  Him.  Neither  are  they  to  be  considered  the 
children  of  the  Saints  who  occupy  the  places  of 
the  Saints,  but  they,  rather,  who  do  the  work  of 
the  Saints.”  Bishops,  then,  because  their  consecra- 
tion is  greater,  are  not,  therefore,  in  a more  perfect 
state  than  priests  who  have  cure  of  souls. 

Again,  it  is  urged,  that  the  anointing  of  the  head 
is  a sign  of  a certain  rank  in  the  priesthood.  For 
the  episcopate  is  not  a new  order  but  a grade  of 
Orders ; otherwise  there  would  be  more  orders  than 
seven.  Now  the  perfection  of  charity  is  a question 
not  of  rank,  but  of  holiness.  Hence  bishops,  who, 
by  the  unction  of  the  head  are  raised  to  a superior 
grade  of  the  priesthood,  are  not  thereby  placed  in 
a more  perfect  state.  Again,  a bishop  appoints  an 


OBJECTIONS  STATED 


129 


archdeacon,  a parish  priest  or  a curate  by  giving 
him  a ring  or  a book,  as  is  laid  down  in  “ de  sententia 
et  re  judicata just  as  when  the  pope  sends  anyone 
to  be  attached  to  any  church  as  a canon  or  brother, 
he  desires  him  to  be  appointed  with  complete 
honours,  as  we  learn  in  Be  concessione  ecclesiae , cap. 
Proposuit.  Thus,  the  state  of  parish  priests  or  arch- 
deacons appears  to  be  a true  state  from  which  a 
man  can  be  ejected. 


s 


CHAPTER  XXII 


SHOWING  THAT  THE  LIABILITY  TO  SUSPENSION 
DOES  NOT  SUFFICE  TO  PROVE,  THAT  PARISH 
PRIESTS  OR  ARCHDEACONS  ARE  IN  A STATE  OF 
PERFECTION 

Many  objections  are  made  to  the  proposition,  that 
archdeacons  or  parish  priests  are  not  in  a state  of 
perfection  because  they  can,  without  sin,  resign  their 
office.  We  are  told,  first,  that  pastors  of  souls  may 
resign  their  posts  and  retire  into  religion ; because, 
while  the  pastorate  is  a more  useful  and  more 
perfect  state  than  the  religious,  the  religious  life  is 
the  safer  of  the  two.  In  proof  of  this,  the  passage, 
Nisi  cum  pridem  from  Extra  de  renuntiat.  is  quoted. 
A husband  may  not  put  his  wife  away  against  her 
will,  in  order  to  become  a religious  ( Extra  de  con- 
version conjugatorum}  cap.  TJxoratus).  This,  however, 
is  not  because  the  married  state  is  more  perfect 
than,  or  even  equal  to,  the  religious,  but  because  a 
husband  binds  himself  indissolubly  to  his  wife. 
And,  a 'pari , the  fact  that  a parish  priest  can  pass 
into  the  religious  life,  does  not  prove  that  the 
religious  state  exceeds,  or  even  equals,  the  pastorate 
in  perfection. 


130 


FURTHER  OBJECTIONS 


131 


The  example  of  David  is  also  alleged  as  an  argu- 
ment against  our  proposition.  Being  unable  to  meet 
Saul  with  ordinary  armour,  which  would  have  been 
too  heavy  for  him,  David  provided  himself  with 
lowlier  weapons,  to  wit  with  a sling  and  stones ; and 
with  these  alone  he  overthrew  the  mighty  Philistine. 
After  this  example,  a parish  priest  may,  likewise, 
take  to  himself  arms  of  greater  humility,  i.e.,  he  may 
transfer  himself  from  his  own  more  perfect  state  to 
the  religious  life. 

It  is  further  objected,  that,  if  the  essence  of  a state 
depend  upon  the  fact  that  that  state  cannot  be 
changed,  it  would  not  be  lawful  for  a man  to  pass 
from  one  state  to  another.  Hence,  immutability  is 
not  essential  to  a state.  Again,  according  to  the 
written  law,  a prelate  can  recall  to  a parish  one  of 
his  priests  who  has  entered  religion,  if  he  know  that 
he  is  likely  to  be  of  use  in  the  diocese ; and  if  a 
priest  go  into  a monastery,  without  the  consent  of 
his  bishop,  he  is  liable  to  a canonical  penance  {Extra 
cle  renuntiatione,  cap.  Amovet ; et  de  privilegiis  et 
excessu  privilegiatorum^&w.  Cum  et  plantar  e in  ecclesiis, 
and  VII.  quaest.  I.  can.  Episcopus  de  loco).  Hence,  it 
is  not  true  to  say,  that  the  religious  state  is  more 
perfect  than  that  of  parish  priests,  because  the  latter 
can  embrace  the  religious  life.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  a monk  may,  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  and 
for  the  welfare  of  souls,  pass  from  the  religious  life 


132 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


to  a secular  church  with  parish  work  (XVI.  quaest. 
I.  cap.  Vos  antem , and  cap.  Monackos).  For,  the  profit 
of  many  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  advantage  of  an 
individual  (VII.  q.  I.  cap.  Scias). 

Again,  the  fact  that  men  are  liable  to  fall  from  the 
perfection  of  charity,  is  no  proof  that  they  never 
were  in  the  perfection  of  charity.  Their  fall  is 
rather  a witness  to  the  contrary.  Hence,  the  lapse 
of  a parish  priest  does  not  prove  that  before  his  sin 
he  was  not  in  a state  of  perfection. 

An  ecclesiastical  decree,  promulgated  in  the  time 
of  Pope  Innocent,  forbids  prelates  of  the  highest 
rank  ( i.e . bishops)  to  become  religious,  without  the 
permission  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  This  appears 
in  the  decretal  Extra  de  renuntiatione , cap.  Nisi 
cum  pridem.  But  before  the  promulgation  of  this 
decree,  the  highest  in  the  Church  as  well  as  the 
lowest,  were  free  to  become  religious ; and  yet  bishops 
are  in  a more  perfect  state  than  are  the  inferior 
clergy.  The  fact,  then,  that  parish  priests  can 
become  religious  without  the  permission  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff,  does  not  prevent  their  being  in  a 
more  perfect  state  than  are  religious. 

Again,  no  one  can  be  consecrated  bishop  who  has 
not  already  received  Holy  Orders  (LX.  distinct. 
Nullus  in  episcopum).  But  no  ordained  person  can 
marry.  Hence  it  is  untrue  to  say  that  a bishop 
elect  can  marry. 


CHAPTEE  XXIII 

AN  ANSWER  TO  THE  FOREGOING  ARGUMENTS,  IN 
WHICH  AN  ATTEMPT  WAS  MADE  TO  SHOW  THAT 
ARCHDEACONS  AND  PARISH  PRIESTS  ARE  IN 
A HIGHER  DEGREE  OF  PERFECTION  THAN  ARE 
RELIGIOUS 

We  will  now  carefully  examine  each  of  the  argu- 
ments quoted  in  the  last  chapter,  in  order  to  show 
how  truly  they  may  be  set  aside,  as  frivolous,  absurd, 
and  erroneous. 

First.  We  are  told  that  certain  canonical  decrees 
prove  that  archdeacons  and  pastors  of  souls  are  in  a 
fixed  state.  This  argument  is  worthless,  for  the 
Canons  in  question  speak,  not  of  the  state,  of  the 
clergy,  but  of  their  rank.  The  words  used  in 
LXXXI.  distinctione  are,  “Henceforth,  should  any 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  take  a wife,  or  keep  one 
whom  he  has  married,  let  him  be  degraded  from  his 
rank.”  Again  (in  XIV.  quaestion.  IV.  can.  "Si  quis 
dicetur  ”),  we  find  the  following  passage,  “ If  any 
man,  forgetful  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  and  of  the 
words  of  Holy  Scripture  ‘ who  has  not  given  his 
money  out  at  usury  ’ shall,  after  the  constitution 

133 


134 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


of  the  Great  Council,  have  committed  usury,  or 
received  interest  on  his  money,  or  enriched  himself 
by  any  dishonest  practice,  or  by  selling  or  buying 
wine,  corn  or  property  of  any  kind,  let  him  be 
degraded  from  his  rank ; and  let  him  be  considered  an 
outcast  from  the  clergy.”  Thus,  these  words  cannot 
be  understood  to  speak  of  clerical  state,  but  of  that 
clerical  rank  which  must  necessarily  exist.  For, 
wheresoever  there  be  any  order  or  superiority,  there 
must  be  specified  degrees  of  rank. 

With  regard  to  the  second  argument,  we  may  say 
that  its  absurdity  is  so  patent,  that  none  can  fail  to 
see  it.  No  one  doubts  that  the  word  state  is  used 
with  several  meanings.  For  he  who  is  erect  is  said 
to  stand.  We  also  distinguish  between  the  state 
of  beginners,  of  proficients,  and  of  the  perfect.  To 
stand  also  means  to  be  firm.  Thus  St.  Paul  says 
(1  Cor.  xv.  58),  “Be  ye  steadfast  and  immoveable: 
always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord.”  But 
this  is  not  the  usual  way  in  which  the  word  state 
is  used.  We  employ  it,  rather,  to  indicate  a certain 
condition ; we  say,  a state  of  liberty,  or  a state 
of  slavery.  It  is  made  use  of  in  this  sense  in 
II.  quaest.  VI.,  where  these  words  occur,  “ If  we 
should  by  chance  be  appealed  to  in  a capital  charge, 
or  in  a suit  concerning  a state,  we  must  act  at 
our  own  discretion,  not  by  means  of  examiners.” 
If  we  accept  the  word  state  in  this  sense,  it  is  true 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


135 


to  say,  that  they  embrace  the  state  of  perfection 
who,  as  we  have  before  said,  bind  themselves  to  the 
service  of  works  of  perfection.  This  cannot  be 
the  case  save  by  a vow,  implying  a perpetual 
obligation  of  service  or  servitude,  as  opposed  to 
liberty.  As  long,  then,  as  a man  is  free  to  abandon 
the  works  of  perfection,  he  is  not  in  a state  of 
perfection. 

The  third  objection  is,  likewise,  so  frivolous,  that 
it  would  seem  hardly  to  need  an  answer.  In  the 
words,  “ Priests  who  govern  well,”  there  is  no 
mention  either  of  a state,  or  of  perfection.  Govern- 
ment does  not  indicate  a state,  but  a rank.  Honour 
is  due,  not  only  to  perfection,  but  to  all  who  do 
good  works ; and  this  fact  is  shown  by  the  very 
words,  “they  that  govern  well.”  We  read,  also,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (ii.  10),  “ Glory  and  peace 
and  honour  to  every  one  that  worketh  good.” 

The  fourth  argument  contains  a manifest  un- 
truth. We  are  told,  that,  in  the  days  of  SS.  Jerome 
and  Augustine,  a bishop  and  priest  were  one  and 
the  same.  Now,  St.  Augustine  expressly  says  the 
opposite  in  his  epistle  ad  Hieronymum.  We  give 
his  words.  “ Although,”  he  says,  “ in  the  language 
of  good  men,  which  has  become  current  in  the 
Church,  the  episcopate  is  accounted  greater  than 
the  priesthood,  it  is  nevertheless,  in  many  things 
less.”  But  as  some  men  may  deny,  that,  in  the 


136 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


days  of  St.  Jerome,  bishops  were  generally  regarded 
as  superior  to  priests,  we  will  quote  the  authority 
of  Dionysius,  who  wrote  concerning  the  order  of 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  as  it  was  established  in 
the  primitive  Church.  These  are  his  words : 
“ There  are  three  orders  in  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy,  to  wit,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons” 
(Y.  cap.  Eccl.  hierarch.).  We  may  remark,  that 
tha  same  writer  speaks  of  deacons  as  composing 
the  purifying  order,  of  priests  as  forming  the  illu- 
minative order,  and  of  bishops  as  being  the  order 
producing  perfection.  “ There  are  further,”  he  con- 
tinues, “three  other  orders  corresponding  to  the 
three  already  mentioned.  For,  the  order  of  the 
unpurified  is  subject  to  that  of  the  deacons,  whose 
duty  it  is  to  cleanse.  The  order  of  those  needing 
light  (■ i.e .,  the  holy  people  of  God)  is  subject  to  the 
order  of  priests,  whose  office  it  is  to  illuminate  by 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments.  The  order 
of  the  perfect  (i.e.,  the  monks)  is  subject  to  the 
order  of  bishops,  and  is  by  them,  instructed  in,  and 
elevated  to,  sublime  perfection.”  Hence,  we  see  that 
Dionysius  attributes  perfection  only  to  bishops 
and  monks : to  bishops  as  to  the  more  perfect, 
to  monks  as  perfect.  But,  lest  anyone  should  make 
the  objection,  that  he  describes  an  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy  established  by  the  Apostles,  whereas,  by 
the  institution  of  Our  Lord,  bishops  and  priests 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


137 


were  one  and  the  same,  we  will  disprove  this  fallacy 
by  quoting  the  words  of  the  Gloss  on  St.  Luke 
(x.  1),  “ After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed,  etc.” 
The  Gloss  observes  that,  “ whereas  the  first  order, 
that  of  the  bishops,  is  represented  by  the  Apostles, 
the  second  order,  that  of  the  priesthood,  is  typified 
by  the  seventy- two  disciples.” 

It  is  strange  how  those  who  uphold  this  argu- 
ment, appear  to  misunderstand  simple  words.  They 
assert,  that  it  is  only  since  the  days  of  St.  Jerome, 
that  bishops  have  been  distinguished  from  priests. 
Yet,  if  anyone  will  examine  the  Old  Law,  of  which 
the  priesthood  prefigured  our  priesthood,  he  will 
see  that  the  High  Priests  were  an  order  distinct 
from  the  priests.  It  is  stated  (distinct.  XXI.  cap. 
De  quifats),  that,  “The  High  Priests  and  inferior 
priests  were  instituted  by  Moses,  who,  at  the 
bidding  of  the  Lord,  anointed  Aaron  to  be  High 
Priest,  and  his  sons  inferior  priests.”  This  passage 
proves  that  the  words  of  St.  Jerome  have  been 
misinterpreted.  For,  the  Saint  does  not  say,  that 
in  the  primitive  Church  the  order,  or  state,  of  the 
episcopate  and  that  of  the  priesthood  was  one  and 
the  same.  What  he  says  is,  that  the  same  word 
was  used  to  designate  the  two  orders.  For  priests 
spoke  of  bishops,  literally,  as  superintendents;  and 
bishops  used  the  same  word  of  priests,  on  account 
of  their  priestly  dignity.  Hence  Isidore  says  (and 
T 


138 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


it  is  laid  down,  distinct.  XXL  cap.  Cleros)  that, 
“ the  inferior  clergy,  although  priests,  have  not 
attained  to  the  highest  dignity  of  the  pontificate ; 
for  their  foreheads  are  not  anointed  with  chrism; 
neither  have  they  power  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost, 
a power,  as  we  know  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
reserved  to  bishops.  Hence  (he  concludes),  in  the 
early  Church  the  same  word  was  used  both  for 
bishops  and  priests ; for  the  name  denotes  dignity 
and  not  age.”  There  is  a difference  in  the  thing 
signified;  but  the  same  word  is,  on  account  of  the 
priestly  dignity,  used  both  for  bishops  and  priests. 
In  later  times,  however,  it  was  found  necessary,  for 
the  removal  of  a schism,  arising  from  the  similarity 
of  name,  to  make  a distinction  in  the  appellation 
of  the  ranks  of  the  clergy.  Since  then,  the  superior 
priesthood  only  has  been  called  the  episcopate ; and 
the  inferior  clergy  are  known,  simply,  as  priests. 

The  argument  brought  forward  in  the  fifth  objec- 
tion is  not  tenable.  The  contemplative  life  is 
superior  to  the  active,  not,  merely,  because  it  is 
more  secure,  but  simply  because  it  is  better.  This, 
Our  Lord’s  own  words  point  out : “ Mary  hath 
chosen  the  better  part”  (Luke  x.  43).  And  in 
so  far  as  contemplation  is  superior  to  activity,  so 
much  the  more  would  he  seem  to  do  for  God,  who, 
at  the  expense  of  his  much  loved  contemplation, 
devotes  himself,  for  God’s  sake,  to  his  neighbour’s 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


139 


salvation.  Hence,  it  is  a proof  of  a greater  per- 
fection of  charity,  to  be  willing,  for  the  love  of 
God  and  of  our  neighbour,  to  labour  for  the 
salvation  of  others,  even  though,  by  so  doing,  con- 
templation be  somewhat  impaired,  than  to  cleave 
so  closely  to  the  sweetness  of  contemplation  as  to 
be  unwilling  to  sacrifice  it,  even  for  the  salvation 
of  others.  St.  Paul  was  so  zealous  for  the  salvation 
of  his  brethren,  that  he  desired,  for  their  sake,  not 
merely  the  prolongation  of  this  present  life,  but 
also  the  temporary  postponement  of  the  Beatific 
vision.  His  own  words  to  the  Philippians  (i.  23) 
are  a proof  of  his  disposition.  “ I am  straitened,” 
he  says,  “ between  two : having  a desire  to  be 
dissolved  and  to  be  with  Christ,  a thing  by  far 
the  better.  But  to  abide  still  in  the  flesh,  is 
needful  for  you.” 

If  by  perfection  of  charity  we  mean  (according 
to  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine),  preparation  of 
heart,  many  who  lead  a contemplative  life  have 
attained  to  a degree  of  charity  not  found  in  some 
who  are  entirely  occupied  in  labouring  for  the 
salvation  of  their  neighbour.  For,  many  contem- 
platives  are  ready,  in  order  to  please  God,  to 
suspend  for  a time  their  cherished  contemplation, 
in  order . to  devote  themselves  to  the  welfare  of 
their  brethren.  Whereas,  those  who  are  busied  in 
exterior  works,  are  often  led  to  engage  in  them, 


140 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


rather  from  the  tedium  which  they  experience  in 
contemplation,  than  from  the  desire  of  attaining  to 
the  fulness  of  divine  love,  which  would  induce  them 
to  lay  aside  for  a time  that  contemplation  which  is 
their  delight.  But,  the  faults  of  individuals  do  not 
detract  from  the  merit  of  any  state  or  office;  and 
care  for  the  salvation  of  others  must  always  be 
esteemed  an  act  of  perfection,  since  it  pertains  to 
the  love,  both  of  God,  and  of  our  neighbour. 

But,  here  we  must  remember,  that  not  everyone 
who  performs  acts  of  perfection,  is  necessarily  in  a 
state  of  perfection.  Ho  one  doubts,  that  a life  of 
virginity  pertains  to  perfection.  Our  Lord  says  of 
it:  “He  that  can  take  let  him  take”  (Matt.  xix.  12). 
And  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians,  (1  Ep.  vii.  25), 
“ Concerning  virgins  I have  no  commandment  from 
the  Lord,  but  I give  a counsel.”  Now  there  are 
counsels  concerning  the  works  of  perfection  ; never- 
theless a life  of  virginity  without  a vow,  does  not 
constitute  a state  of  perfection.  St.  Augustine  says, 
in  his  book,  De  mrginibus , “Virginity  is  not  honoured 
because  it  is  virginity,  but  because  it  is  dedicated  to 
God.  And  by  this  consecration,  even  virginity  of 
the  body,  preserved  by  piety,  becomes  spiritual.” 
And,  again,  he  says,  “ That  continence  is  to  be 
numbered  among  the  goods  of  the  soul,  by  which 
the  body  is  preserved  inviolate,  for  the  Creator  of 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


141 


soul  and  body,  and  which  is  dedicated  and  con- 
secrated to  Him.” 

Now,  it  is  clear,  that  neither  archdeacons  nor 
parish  priests,  even  if  they  are  entrusted  with  the 
care  of  souls,  are  bound  by  vow  to  that  office.  If 
they  were,  they  could  not  relinquish  an  archidiaco- 
nate  or  a parish,  without  a dispensation  from  him 
who  has  power  to  annul  perpetual  vows.  Hence, 
although  an  archdeacon,  or  a parish  priest  performs 
a work  of  perfection  or  accepts  a position  involving 
such  work,  he  is,  nevertheless,  not  in  a state  of 
perfection.  And,  if  we  reflect  carefully,  we  shall 
see  that  the  religious  life  is,  really,  the  state  of 
perfection ; since,  by  the  vow  of  their  order,  religious 
are  obliged,  more  strictly  than  are  archdeacons  or 
priests,  to  submit  to  their  bishops,  in  all  that  regards 
the  cure  of  souls,  such  as  preaching  and  hearing 
confessions. 

With  regard  to  the  sixth  objection,  we  declare 
that,  as  has  been  already  shown,  it  is  untrue  to 
say  that  there  cannot  be  increase,  or  perfection  of 
charity,  in  a person  who  is  not  living  in  a state 
of  perfection.  Some  men  live  in  a state  of  perfection, 
while  their  charity  is  either  very  imperfect,  or  does 
not  exist;  for  there  are  many  religious  and  bishops 
living  in  .a  state  of  mortal  sin.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  fact  that  there  are  many  good  parish 
priests,  whose  charity  is  perfect,  and  who  are  ready 


142 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


to  lay  down  their  lives  for  others,  does  not  prove 
that  they  are  in  a state  of  perfection.  For  there 
are  many  laymen,  even  married  people,  who  have 
attained  to  such  perfection  of  charity,  that  they, 
also,  are  willing  to  die  for  their  neighbour.  This 
virtue,  however,  does  not  prove  such  persons  to 
be  in  a state  of  perfection. 

As  for  the  seventh  objection,  viz.  that  the  deacons 
appointed  by  the  Apostles  were  in  a state  of  per- 
fection, there  is  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  this 
assertion,  either  in  the  text  of  the  Bible,  or  in 
the  Gloss.  We  are  told  that  the  deacons  were 
“ filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  wisdom  ” ; 
but  this  merely  shows,  that  they  possessed  that 
perfection  of  grace  which  may  exist  in  those  who 
are  not  in  a state  of  perfection.  And  the  fact  that 
they  ministered  around  the  altar,  only  points  out 
that  they  held  a certain  high  rank  in  the  Church. 
For,  as  we  have  before  said,  there  is  a difference 
between  a state  and  a rank.  It  is,  nevertheless, 
true  that  the  deacons  were  in  that  state  of  perfection, 
to  which  Our  Lord  referred  when  He  said,  “ If  thou 
wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  what  thou  hast,  and  follow 
Me”  (Matt.  xix.  21).  For  the  deacons  followed 
Christ,  forsaking  all  things,  and  possessing  nothing 
of  their  own,  but  having  all  things  in  common 
(Acts  iv.).  It  is  on  their  example  that  religious 
orders  are  moulded. 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


143 


In  the  eighth  objection  it  is  maintained  that  the 
archdeacons  SS.  Stephen,  Lawrence,  and  Vincent, 
were  in  a state  of  perfection.  They  most  certainly 
were.  But  this  state  was  due,  not  to  the  fact  that 
they  were  archdeacons,  but  that  they  were  martyrs. 
Martyrdom  surpasses  all  religious  perfection.  St. 
Augustine  in  his  book  Be  virginities , says,  “Ecclesias- 
tical authority  gives  us  the  plainest  evidence  of  this 
fact.  For,  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  it  is 
made  known  to  the  faithful,  in  what  places  the 
names  of  martyrs  and  of  holy  women  deceased,  are 
mentioned  at  the  mysteries  of  the  altar.”  Yet, 
I say,  that  even  though  Sebastian  and  George  were 
in  a state  of  perfection,  we  cannot,  on  their  account, 
call  the  military  life  a state  of  perfection. 

The  ninth  objection  brought  against  us,  is,  that 
parish  priests  and  archdeacons  resemble  bishops 
rather  than  religious.  This  is  true  as  regards  their 
work,  to  wit  the  care  of  souls  committed  to  them. 
But  it  is  not  the  case  with  regard  to  that  perpetual 
obligation,  which  is  essential  to  a state  of  perfection. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  obligation,  religious,  as 
has  been  pointed  out,  resemble  bishops  more  closely 
than  do  archdeacons  or  parish  priests. 

We  fully  agree  with  the  tenth  proposition,  viz. 
that  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  property 
does  not  detract  from  the  state  of  perfection.  Were 
this  the  case,  the  superiors  and  ministers  of  tern- 


144 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


poral  affairs  in  religious  orders  would  become 
imperfect.  But  perfection  is  weakened  in  those 
who  do  not  renounce  all  that  they  possess,  for  the 
sake  of  Christ,  and  who  make  a profit  out  of  the 
revenues  of  the  Church,  as  if  they  were  their  own 
property. 

They  who  put  forward  the  eleventh  objection,  are 
plainly  led  astray  by  the  folly  of  Yigilantius,  against 
whom  St.  Jerome  thus  writes,  “Those  who  assert 
that  it  is  more  perfect  to  keep  the  use  of  their  own 
goods  and  to  distribute  their  income  among  the 
poor  in  driblets,  rather  than  to  renounce  and  give 
away  all  their  possessions  at  once,  must  take  their 
answer,  not  from  me,  but  from  the  Lord,  who  said, 
‘ If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  all  that  thou  hast, 
and  give  to  the  poor,  and  come  follow  me.’  He 
is  speaking  to  those  who  desire  to  be  perfect,  and 
who,  with  the  Apostles,  leave  father,  boat,  and  net. 
He  whose  example  thou  dost  praise,  is  in  the  second 
or  third  rank  of  perfection.”  Further,  it  is  incorrect 
to  say  that  archdeacons  and  parish  priests  are  more 
perfect  than  monks,  because  they  show  hospitality 
and  monks  do  not.  For,  as  religious  renounce  all 
that  they  possess,  they  have  no  means  of  enter- 
taining guests. 

The  twelfth  argument,  viz.  that  the  most  agree- 
able offering  that  can  be  made  to  God  is  zeal  for 
souls,  is  undoubtedly  true.  But  a certain  order 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION 


145 


must  be  observed  in  this  zeal.  A man  must,  first, 
have  zeal  for  his  own  soul,  and  strip  it  of  all  earthly 
affections  in  accordance  with  those  words  of  the 
wise  man  (Eccles.  xxx.  24),  “ Have  pity  on  thine 
own  soul,  pleasing  God.”  This  duty  is  pointed  out 
by  St.  Augustine  (XXI.  De  civitate  Dei).  Now, 
if  a man,  having  arrived  at  contempt  for  earthly 
concerns,  and  even  for  himself,  proceed,  further,  to 
zeal  for  the  soul  of  others,  he  will,  thereby,  offer 
a more  perfect  sacrifice  to  God,  than  he  would  have 
presented  by  zeal  only  for  his  own  salvation.  But 
the  most  perfect  of  all  offerings  that  can  be  made 
to  the  Almighty,  is  the  obligation,  whereby  bishops 
and  religious  are  bound,  by  vow  or  profession,  to 
live  a life  of  zeal  for  souls. 

The  thirteenth  argument,  viz.  that,  as  a patriarch 
presides  in  his  patriarchate,  and  a bishop  in  his 
see,  so,  likewise,  an  archdeacon  rules  in  his  archi- 
diaconate,  and  a pastor  in  his  parish,  is  manifestly 
faulty.  For,  a bishop  rules  the  whole  of  his  diocese ; 
whereas  archdeacons  and  parish  priests  have  their 
sphere  of  government  allotted  to  them  by  their 
bishop ; they  are,  so  to  speak,  his  lieutenants.  The 
Gloss,  commenting  on  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor. 
xii.  28),  “ helps,  governments,”  interprets  these 
“helps”  as  coadjutors  to  their  superiors  as  was 
Titus  to  St.  Paul,  or  as  archdeacons  are  to  their 
bishops.  “ Governments,”  according  to  the  Gloss, 
u 


146 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


signify  the  clergy  of  inferior  rank,  such  as  priests, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  teach.  This  interpretation  is 
borne  out  by  the  words  used  by  the  bishop  in  the 
ordination  of  priests : “ Inasmuch  as  we  are  weaker 
than  they  (i.e.  than  the  Apostles),  by  so  much  the 
more  do  we  need  these  helps.”  Hence,  it  is  laid 
down  (XYI.  quaest.  I.  cap.  Cunctis ),  “That  all  priests, 
deacons  and  other  clerics,  must  do  nothing,  without 
the  permission  of  their  own  bishop.”  Thus,  without 
the  license  of  his  bishop,  a priest  cannot  celebrate 
Mass,  nor  baptize  in  his  own  parish.  This  rule  is 
again  established  in  distinct.  LXXX.,  “ Priests  shall 
do  nothing  without  the  command  and  advice  of  their 
bishop.” 

The  fourteenth  objection  bears  witness  to  the 
sentiments  of  those  that  make  it.  It  is  founded 
on  the  faot,  that  priests  when  guilty  of  heinous 
crimes,  are  imprisoned  in  monasteries.  “ When 
crafty  people  say  what  is  true,”  observes  St. 
Gregory  (X.  Moral),  “it  is  very  difficult  for  them 
to  conceal  their  secret  ambition.”  Those  who  bring 
forward  the  argument  about  the  imprisonment  of 
criminal  priests,  conclude  that  priests  are  in  a state 
of  perfection  in  which  monks  are  not,  because 
guilty  priests  are  condemned  to  a rigorous  penance, 
which  innocent  religious  voluntarily  embrace.  But 
that  state  is  highest  before  God  which  is  the  most 
lowly  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  For,  “he  that 


PRIESTS  AND  PERFECTION  147 


humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted”  (Luke  xiv.  11), 
and  “ God  hath  chosen  the  poor  of  this  world,  rich 
in  faith  and  heirs  of  the  Kingdom  ” (James  ii.  5). 
But  those  who  are  ambitious  of  the  glory  of  this 
world,  reckon  earthly  honour  to  be  a state ; and 
they  account  as  abject,  whatsoever  the  world 
despises. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


AN  ANSWER  TO  THE  ARGUMENT,  WHEREBY  CERTAIN 
PERSONS  ENDEAVOUR  TO  PROVE,  THAT  THE  DE- 
FECT OF  A SOLEMN  BLESSING  OR  CONSECRATION 
DOES  NOT  HINDER  ARCHDEACONS  OR  PARISH 
PRIESTS  FROM  BEING  IN  A STATE  OF  PERFECTION 

We  have  already  shown  the  absurdity  of  the  argu- 
ments, on  which  is  based  the  theory  that  archdeacons 
and  parish  priests  are  in  a more  perfect  state  than 
are  religious.  We  will  now,  therefore,  point  out  the 
frivolity  of  the  objections  raised  against  the  proposi- 
tion, that  a man  is  placed  in  a state  of  perfection  by 
means  of  a solemn  blessing  or  consecration. 

But,  first,  we  must  remember  that  a solemn  rite  of 
this  nature,  is  not  a cause,  but  a sign,  of  a state  of 
perfection.  It  is  not  bestowed  on  any  save  on  those 
who  are  entering  some  state  of  life ; though  that 
state  need  not  necessarily  be  one  of  perfection. 
Those  who  are  joined  in  matrimony  embrace  a state, 
in  which  neither  husband  nor  wife  will  hereafter 
belong  to  themselves  (1  Cor.  vii.).  For,  matrimony 
is  a perpetual  bond  uniting  one  to  the  other.  Hence, 
the  Church,  to  signify  this  state  of  perpetuity, 

148 


THE  BLESSING  OF  BISHOPS,  ETC.  149 


(though  it  be  not  a state  of  perfection),  pronounces 
a solemn  nuptial  blessing  over  man  and  wife.  In 
the  same  way,  when  a state  is  changed  in  social  life, 
a certain  form  is  used ; thus,  when  a slave  receives 
his  freedom  a deed  of  manumission  is  drawn  up. 

We  are  not  speaking  at  random.  For,  all  that  we 
say,  is  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  Dionysius,  who 
says  (VI.  cap.  Eccles.  hierarch.)  that,  “our  divine 
masters  (to  wit  the  Apostles),  have  vouchsafed  to 
distinguish  men  by  certain  holy  appellations,” 
namely,  those  who  are  in  the  state  of  the  perfect ; 
“ some  are  servants,  while  others  are  called  monks 
by  reason  of  their  pure  service  and  ministry  to  God, 
and  their  single  and  undivided  life  which  unites 
them,  by  holy  ties,  to  godlike  unity  and  perfection 
most  pleasing  to  God.  On  this  account,  the  holy 
law  has  given  them  perfect  grace,  and  has  deemed 
them  worthy  of  invocation.”  We  are,  also,  expressly 
told,  that,  as  monks  embrace  a state  of  perfection, 
they  are  blessed  by  a solemn  rite,  handed  down  by 
Apostolical  tradition. 

The  argument,  that  both  in  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop  and  in  the  ordination  of  a priest,  the  same 
words  are  used,  viz.,  “ may  these  hands  be  sanctified 
and  consecrated,”  is  irrelevant  to  our  point.  For, 
we  are  not  now  speaking  of  a priest  in  his  priestly 
character.  For,  by  his  solemn  consecration,  he  is 
placed  not  in  a state  of  perfection,  be  it  active  or 


150 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


passive,  but  (as  Dionysius  tells  us),  in  an  illumi- 
native state.  We  are  speaking  of  a priest,  in  so  far 
as  he  receives  a certain  charge  or  commission.  And, 
when  this  charge  is  laid  upon  him,  it  is  not  accom- 
panied by  any  special  blessing ; for  he  does  not,  by 
it,  embrace  a state,  but  merely  accepts  an  office.  A 
bishop,  on  the  other  hand,  is  solemnly  consecrated 
to  the  pastoral  office,  by  reason  of  the  perpetual 
obligation,  whereby  he  binds  himself  to  it. 

With  regard  to  the  second  objection  (viz.,  that 
regarding  the  anointing  of  kings),  we  answer  that 
this  unction  was  a sign,  that  he  who  received  it,  was 
entering  a state  involving  the  chief  government  of 
the  kingdom.  The  other  officers  of  the  kingdom 
were  not  anointed,  because  they  had  no  plenitude  of 
power.  In  like  manner  in  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Church,  a bishop  receives  unction  on  his  head,  to 
signify  that  he  is  the  principal  ruler  of  his  diocese ; 
while  archdeacons  and  parish  priests,  who  only  hold 
a commission  from  the  bishop,  and  who  act  as  his 
lieutenants,  are  not  anointed.  But  the  fact  of  his 
receiving  unction,  is  no  proof  that  a king  enters  a 
state  of  perfection ; since  his  charge  extends  only  to 
temporal  matters.  It  is  not  like  that  of  bishops, 
which  extends  to  such  as  are  spiritual.  Charity, 
wherein  perfection  consists,  regards  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  others.  Hence,  solicitude  about  the 
spiritual,  not  about  the  temporal,  wants  of  our 


THE  “ ORDER,  ” OF  THE  EPISCOPATE  151 


neighbour,  is  essential  to  perfection ; although  per- 
fect charity  may,  likewise,  occupy  itself  about  the 
material  needs  of  others. 

The  third  argument  is  quite  irrelevant  to  the 
matter  of  which  we  are  treating.  The  point  with 
which  we  are  at  present  dealing,  is  not  that  of  per- 
fection of  merit,  which  may  of  course  be  greater  in  a 
parish  priest,  or  even  in  a married  man,  than  in  a 
bishop  or  religious.  The  subject  with  which  we  are 
occupied  is  the  state  of  perfection.  It  would  seem, 
by  the  argument  of  our  adversaries,  that  they  do  not 
understand  the  meaning  of  their  own  words  ; since, 
according  to  their  reasoning,  even  bishops  them- 
selves, are  not  in  a higher  state  of  perfection  than 
priests ; for  it  may  happen  that  their  lives  are  less 
meritorious  than  are  the  lives  of  priests. 

The  fourth  objection,  i.e.,  that  the  episcopate  is  not 
an  order,  contains,  if  it  be  taken  in  its  literal  mean- 
ing, a palpable  falsehood.  For  Dionysius  expressly 
says  that  there  are  three  orders  of  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy,  to  wit,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons. 
Again,  in  the  distinct.  XXI.  cap.  Cleros , it  is  said, 
that  the  order  of  bishops  is  divided  into  four  parts. 
A bishop  has  a certain  order  with  respect  to  the 
mystical  body  of  Christ,  i.e.,  the  Church  in  whose 
government  he  takes  the  chief  part.  But,  with 
regard  to  the  true  Body  of  Christ  which  is  contained 
in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  he  has  no  superiority  over 


152 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


a priest.  The  proof  that  a bishop  has  a certain 
order,  and  not  merely  jurisdiction,  like  an  archdeacon 
or  parish  priest,  lies  in  the  fact,  that  a bishop  can  do 
many  things,  such  as  administering  Confirmation 
and  Holy  Orders,  and  consecrating  churches,  Which 
he  cannot  commission  others  to  do.  The  duties 
which  are  matters  of  jurisdiction  only,  he  can 
transfer  to  others.  Another  proof  that  the  epis- 
copate is  an  order,  lies  in  the  fact,  that,  if  a bishop  be 
suspended,  and  then  be  ultimately  restored  to  his 
see,  he  is  not  reconsecrated ; for  he  has  never  lost  the 
power  of  his  order.  This  too  is  the  case  with  men 
who  are  in  other  orders. 

The  fifth  argument,  viz.,  that  an  archdeacon  or 
parish  priest,  is  solemnly  appointed,  because  he  is 
invested  with  a ring,  or  some  other  symbol  of  the 
sort,  is  absolutely  ridiculous.  This  investiture  re- 
sembles certain  civil  ceremonies,  whereby  men  when 
invested  with  a fief  are  presented  with  a ring  or 
staff,  rather  than  the  rites  of  the  Church,  which 
consist  in  a solemn  blessing  or  consecration. 


I 


CHAPTER  XXV 


AN  ANSWER  TO  THE  ARGUMENTS  WHICH  ARE 
BROUGHT  FORWARD,  TO  PROVE  THAT  THE  POWER 
OF  AN  ARCHDEACON  OR  PARISH  PRIEST  TO  RE- 
SIGN HIS  DUTIES  IS  NO  HINDRANCE  TO  HIS 
BEING  IN  A STATE  OF  PERFECTION 

We  must  next  point  out,  that  they  argue  with  great 
inconsistency,  who  say  that  archdeacons  and  parish 
priests,  in  spite  of  their  being  able  to  resign  their 
office,  are  in  a state  of  perfection,  equal  to  that  of 
the  episcopate  or  of  the  religious  life.  With  regard  to 
this  point,  it  must  be  remembered,  that,  whoever 
leaves  a state  of  perfection  for  one  less  perfect,  is 
considered  an  apostate.  Hence  St.  Paul  writes  con- 
cerning widows,  “ For  when  they  have  grown  wanton 
in  Christ  they  will  marry;  having  damnation,  be- 
cause they  have  made  void  their  first  faith  ” 
(1  Tim.  v.  11).  On  these  words,  the  Gloss  remarks, 
“ Violation  of  a vow  is  damnable.  Fidelity  to  a 
broken  vow  is,  likewise,  damnable.  And  they  are  in 
a state  of  damnation  who  make  void  their  first 
promise  of  continence,  and  who,  like  the  wife  of  Lot, 
look  back ; for  this  is  apostasy.’’  Hence,  if  arch- 


x 


153 


154 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


deacons  or  parish  priests  were  in  a state  of  perfec- 
tion, they  would,  by  renouncing  the  archidiaconates 
or  parishes,  put  themselves  in  a state  of  damnation 
by  becoming  apostates. 

Those  who  argue  against  us,  maintain,  first,  that 
archdeacons  and  parish  priests  can  embrace  the 
religious  life,  not  because  the  religious  state  is  more 
perfect  than  that  in  which  they  have  been  living, 
but  because  it  is  safer.  This,  however,  is  eminently 
untrue.  It  is  distinctly  stated,  XIX.  quaest.  I., 
that,  “ such  of  the  clergy  as  desire  to  become 
religious,  in  order  that,  thus,  they  may  be  able  to  lead 
a better  life,  shall  be  permitted  by  their  bishops  to 
enter  monasteries.”  Hence,  it  is  clear,  that  their 
desire  of  embracing  the  religious  state,  must  be  on 
account  of  its  greater  perfection,  not  by  reason  of 
the  security  which  it  offers.  Archdeacons  and 
parish  priests  may  not  only  resign  their  archidiacon- 
ates or  parishes  in  order  to  go  into  monasteries,  but 
they  are  free  to  resign  them  and  stay  in  the  world. 
This  is  done  by  those  who  become  prebendaries  of  a 
cathedral.  Likewise,  if  they  be  not  in  Holy  Orders, 
they  are  free  to  marry.  We  thus  have  an  incontest- 
able proof,  that  they  are  not  in  a state  of  perfection. 

The  second  argument  brought  against  us  is,  that 
if  the  inability  of  a religious  man  to  leave  his  order 
be  a proof  that  he  is  in  a state  of  perfection,  a mar- 
ried man  must  also  be  in  a perfect  state,  because  he 


RELIGIOUS  LIFE  AND  WEDDED  LIFE  155 


may  not  forsake  his  wife.  The  absurdity  of  this 
reasoning  is  made  clear  by  what  we  have  already 
said.  The  religious  life  and  the  wedded  life  have 
this  one  circumstance  in  common,  that  they  both 
entail  a perpetual  obligation.  But  while  obligations 
of  matrimony  are  not  undertaken  with  a view  to  the 
accomplishment  of  works  of  perfection  but  to  render 
a carnal  debt,  the  ties  of  the  religious  life  bind  men 
solely  to  works  of  perfection,  i.e.,  to  poverty,  chastity, 
and  obedience.  Hence,  the  religious  state  is  one  of 
perfection. 

The  third  argument  is  partly  true  and  partly 
false.  It  embodies  the  proposition,  that,  as  David 
laid  aside  his  armour  for  a sling  and  stones,  so, 
likewise,  it  is  permissible  for  men  to  abandon  a 
more  perfect  state  for  one  more  lowly.  A religious 
may,  by  reason  of  his  weakness,  and  with  a dis- 
pensation, quit  his  order  for  one  less  severe.  But 
the  Church  never  allows  a religious  to  leave  the 
religious  life  for  that  of  a secular  priest,  be  it  as 
archdeacon,  or  as  parish  priest.1  Hence,  we  see 
that  there  is  far  more  difference  between  the 

1 When  a solemnly  professed  religious  is  “secularised,”  he  is 
not  dispensed  from  the  three  vows  of  religion,  nor  does  he  cease 
to  belong  to  the  religious  state.  The  vow  of  obedience  is  generally 
transferred  to  a bishop  ; that  of  poverty  is  only  modified  to  suit 
the  exigencies  of  his  life  outside  the  cloister  ; the  vow  of  chastity 
remains  unchanged.  If  lie  returned  to  his  order,  he  would  not 
have  to  renew  his  profession.  See  Bouix,  De  jure  Reg.,  vol.  ii. 
par.  6,  cap.  4.— Editor. 


156 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


excellence  of  the  religious  state  and  the  state  of 
the  archidiaconate  or  of  parish  priests  (if  theirs  is 
to  be  called  a state),  than  there  is  between  the 
superiority  of  the  more  severe  religious  orders,  and 
that  of  the  less  rigorous  ones. 

The  fourth  objection,  to  wit,  that  if  immutability 
be  essential  to  the  perfection  of  a state,  it  cannot 
be  permissible  to  pass  from  one  state  to  another, 
is  absolutely  frivolous.  It  is  lawful  to  pass  from 
a lower  to  a higher  state,  but  not  vice  versd  {Extra 
de  regularibus).  For,  a more  perfect  state  embraces 
all  that  is  contained  in  that  which  is  less  perfect ; 
but  the  less  perfect  state  does  not  contain  what 
is  included  in  a state  of  greater  perfection.  There- 
fore, a man  who  has  bound  himself  to  that  which 
is  less,  cannot  be  blamed  for  embracing  that  which 
is  greater. 

The  fifth  assertion,  viz.  that  a bishop  can  recall 
one  of  his  clergy  from  the  religious  life  to  resume 
the  charge  of  his  parish,  is  untrue,  and  is  contrary 
to  the  sacred  canons.  The  following  words  occur 
in  Extra  de  renuntiatione , cap.  Admonet , “ You  are 
strictly  to  forbid  the  priests  belonging  to  your  see, 
to  enter,  to  hold,  or  to  leave,  without  your  per- 
mission, the  churches  of  your  diocese,  coming  under 
your  jurisdiction.  Should  any  priest  dare  to  come 
to  one  of  your  churches  without  your  license,  he 
will  incur  canonical  penalties.”  In  like  manner  it 


RELIGIOUS  AND  BISHOPS  157 

is  laid  down  ( et  de  privileg.  Gum  et  plantare)  that, 
“ Religious  who  are  in  churches  which  do  not 
absolutely  belong  to  them,  must  present  to  the 
bishops,  for  ordination,  the  priests  who  shall  be 
responsible  for  the  care  of  such  churches.  Further, 
they  must  render  to  such  priests  an  account  of  the 
temporal  concerns  of  these  churches.  Nor  must 
they  presume,  without  consulting  the  bishop,  to 
remove  these  priests  from  their  charge.”  These 
words  are  only  tantamount  to  saying,  that  parish 
priests,  who,  without  consulting  their  bishop,  resign 
their  cures,  render  themselves  liable  to  canonical 
penalties.  But  it  is  illogical  to  apply  this  general 
rule  to  a particular  case,  and  to  say,  that  priests 
cannot  leave  their  parishes  to  enter  religion.  For 
in  XIX.  quaest.  I.  cap.  Duae , it  is  expressly  stated, 
that,  “even  against  the  desire  of  their  bishop,  secular 
priests  may  quit  their  churches  and  enter  monas- 
teries.”1 Hence  the  words  which  occur  in  VII. 
quaest.  I.  Episcopus  de  loco , etc.,  manifestly  apply  to 
the  passing  of  the  clergy  from  one  church  to 
another,  not  from  the  secular  to  the  religious 
life. 

The  sixth  objection  does  not  touch  the  point  in 


1 If  they  are  bound  by  oath,  or  are  under  an  obligation,  to  the 
diocese,  they  need  the  leave  of  the  Bishop,  or  a dispensation  from 
the  Holy  See  ; in  certain  cases,  both  one  and  the  other  are  required. 
(Bouix,  De  jure  Reg.,  vol.  i.  p.  4,  sect.  1). — Editor. 


158 


THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE 


question.  It  is  urged,  that  religious  pass  from  the 
religious  life  to  a secular  church,  to  which  the  cure 
of  souls  is  attached.  This  is  true.  But  they  do 
not,  in  undertaking  charge  of  a church,  abandon  the 
religious  state.  For  it  is  established  by  XVI. 
quaest.  I.  Dc  monachis , that  “they,  who,  having 
lived  a long  while  in  religion,  are  admitted  to  Holy 
Orders,  do  not,  on  that  account,  relinquish  their 
former  state.”  But  an  archdeacon  or  parish  priest 
can  resign  his  office,  and  embrace  the  religious  life ; 
since,  he  is  thereby  passing  from  a less  to  a more 
perfect  state  under  the  guidance  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  (XIX.  quaest.  I.  Duae). 

The  seventh  argument  is  too  foolish  to  need  an 
answer.  It  is  urged,  that  because  a man  who  was 
in  charity  can  fall  from  charity,  therefore,  it  does 
not  follow  that  he  who  falls  from  a state  of  per- 
fection, was  not  in  a state  of  perfection.  No  one 
falls  from  charity  except  by  sin ; and  by  sin,  like- 
wise, a man  falls  from  a state  of  perfection.  For  as 
men  are  bound  by  a common  law  to  the  love  of 
charity,  they  are  also  bound  to  a state  of  perfection 
by  particular  vows. 

The  eighth  proposition,  viz.,  that  by  ecclesiastical 
constitution  no  bishop  can  become  a religious  with- 
out the  permission  of  the  Pope,  from  the  practice 
of  the  Church  is  evidently  untrue.  The  obstacle  is, 
rather,  on  account  of  the  perpetual  obligation 


IMPEDIMENTS  TO  MARRIAGE  159 


whereby  bishops  bind  themselves  to  the  care  of 
their  flocks.  Hence  St.  Paul  says  (1  Cor.  ix.  16), 
“ A necessity  lieth  upon  me ; for  woe  is  unto  me 
if  I preach  not  the  Gospel.”  He  adds  the  cause 
of  this  necessity,  when  he  says,  “For  whereas  I was 
free  unto  all,  I made  myself  the  servant  of  all.” 
Hence  this  prohibition  is  not  laid  down  in  the 
decretals  as  a statute,  but  as  a fact,  approved  by 
reason. 

The  ninth  objection  is  worthless.  It  is  certain,  as 
a general  rule,  that  no  one  who  has  not  received 
Holy  Orders  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  statute, 
is  eligible  to  a bishopric,  an  archidiaconate,  or  to  the 
care  of  a parish.  But  the  Pope  has,  in  this  matter, 
power  of  granting  dispensation,  a power  which  at 
times  he  exercises.  In  such  a case  those  in  charge 
of  an  archidiaconate  or  parish,  or  even  of  an 
episcopal  see,  can  resign  their  office,  and  marry.  By 
so  doing  they  are  not  breaking  any  contract.  A 
religious,  however,  who  marries,  breaks  his  vow,  or 
contract,  of  celibacy. 


CHAPTER  XXYI 

CONCERNING  THE  WORKS  THAT  A RELIGIOUS  MAY 
LAWFULLY  UNDERTAKE 

It  remains,  now,  for  us  to  consider  which  are  the 
works  befitting  those  living  in  the  religious  state. 
We  have  already  fully  treated  of  this  matter  else- 
where.1 We  will,  therefore  merely  add  a few  words, 
in  the  hope  of  putting  the  calumniators  of  religious 
to  silence.  The  following  words  of  St.  Jerome 
which  are  found  in  the  decrees  (distinct.  LXY.  Olim) 
are  quoted  by  the  enemies  of  the  religious  life. 
“ Before  study  was,  by  the  suggestion  of  Satan, 
introduced  into  the  religious  life,”  etc.  I wonder 
if  they  who  quote  these  words  are  of  opinion  that 
religious  ought  not  to  study  ? For  study,  especially 
of  Holy  Scripture,  peculiarly  befits  men  consecrated 
to  a life  of  contemplation.  St.  Augustine  thought 
study  a fit  occupation  for  religious.  He  writes,  (XIX. 

1 St.  Thomas  treats  exhaustively  of  this  and  other  kindred  sub- 
jects in  the  two  Opuscula , of  which  an  English  translation  has 
been  published  by  Messrs.  Sands  and  Co.,  12,  Burleigh  Street, 
London,  under  the  title,  An  Apology  for  the  Religious  Orders. — 
Editor. 


160 


RELIGIOUS  MAY  HEAR  CONFESSIONS  161 


De  Civitate  Dei),  “ None  ought  to  be  hindered  from 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  a knowledge  which  beseems 
meritorious  leisure.’5  If  they  who  quote  the  saying 
of  St.  Jerome,  intend  to  prove  that  study  is  re- 
prehensible in  religious,  the  words  that  follow  in 
the  same  chapter  ought  to  convince  them  of  their 
error.  “ The  people  will  say  among  themselves : I 
am  of  Paul,  I am  of  Apollo.”  Whence  it  is  clear 
what  is  meant  by  the  words  cited,  “ Before,  by  the 
suggestion  of  the  devil,  there  was  study,”  i.e.  dis- 
sensions in  the  Christian  religion. 

It  is  also  maintained,  that  the  power  of  binding 
and  loosing,  or  rather  the  right  to  exercise  this 
power,  does  not  belong  to  religious  who  are  priests. 
I wonder  what  those  who  speak  thus,  mean  by 
their  words.  If  they  mean,  that  because  monks 
are  ordained  priests,  they  cannot  ipso  facto  exercise 
the  power  of  the  keys,  they  are  perfectly  right. 
This  applies,  likewise,  to  secular  priests.  For  a 
secular  priest  does  not  receive  faculties  to  exercise 
the  power  of  the  keys  because  he  is  ordained  priest. 
He  has  these  faculties  given  him  on  account  of  the 
cure  of  souls,  wherewith  he  is  entrusted.  Therefore, 
if  it  be  argued,  that  monks,  as  monks,  may  not 
exercise  the  power  of  the  keys,  it  is  a plain  false- 
hood. ’ This  is  evident  from  the  following  words 
(XVI.  quaest.  L.):  “Certain  men,  supported  by  no 
authority  whatsoever,  and  inflamed  rather  by  pre- 
Y 


162 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


sumptuous  and  bitter  zeal  than  by  charity,  assert 
that  monks,  being  dead  to  the  world,  and  living 
only  to  God,  are  unworthy  to  exercise  the  functions 
of  the  priesthood.  They  hold  that  monks  cannot 
instruct  men  in  penance,  or  in  the  truths  of 
Christianity,  and  that  they  are  unable,  by  the 
power  divinely  committed  to  them  in  their  priestly 
office,  to  absolve  sinners.  But  this  is  completely 
erroneous.  Blessed  Benedict,  the  gentle  guide  of 
monks,  has  never  prohibited  them  from  performing 
this  office.  And,  it  is  observed,  that  those  things 
only,  are  unlawful  to  religious,  which  are  forbidden 
them  by  their  rule.” 

Those  who  would  fain  limit  the  sphere  of  activity 
open  to  religious,  also  quote  the  following  words : 
“ The  office  of  a monk  is  not  that  of  a doctor,  but 
of  a mourner”  (XVI.  quaest.  I.).  If,  by  these  words, 
they  intend  to  prove  that  because  a man  is  a monk, 
he  need  not,  necessarily,  be  a teacher,  the  proposition 
is  perfectly  true.  Otherwise,  every  monk  must 
needs  be  a teacher.  But,  if  they  mean  that  the  fact 
that  a man  is  a monk,  is  in  some  way  incompatible 
with  his  being,  likewise,  a teacher,  their  opinion  is 
clearly  erroneous.  On  the  contrary,  the  office  of 
teaching,  especially  of  teaching  Holy  Scripture, 
belongs,  pre-eminently,  to  religious.  On  the  words 
of  St.  John’s  Gospel,  “ The  woman  therefore  left  her 
water  pot,”  etc.,  the  Gloss  says,  quoting  St.  Augus- 


RELIGIOUS  MAY  TEACH  AND  PREACH  163 


tine:  “From  these  words  let  those  intending  to 
preach  the  Gospel  learn  to  put  away  worldly 
anxieties  and  cares.  Our  Lord  entrusted  to  those 
who  had  left  all  things  and  followed  Him,  the 
office  of  universal  teaching,  saying  to  His  disciples, 
‘going,  therefore,  teach  ye  all  nations’,,  (Matt,  xxviii.). 

The  same  answer  may  be  made  to  all  other  objec- 
tions of  the  same  sort : as,  for  instance,  to  the  argu- 
ment, that  the  position  of  the  cleric  and  the  monk 
differ,  for  the  cleric  having  charge  of  souls,  says 
*'  I feed  my  sheep,”  but  the  monk  says  “ I am  fed.” 
The  same  reply  must,  also,  be  made  to  those  who 
say,  “ Let  the  monk  sit  solitary  and  hold  his  peace.” 
These  words,  and  others  resembling  them,  certainly 
point  out  the  conduct  beseeming  a monk  as  a monk  ; 
but  they  do  not  forbid  him  to  undertake  superior 
offices,  if  such  be  entrusted  to  him.  A secular 
priest  cannot,  by  reason  of  his  being  a priest,  pro- 
nounce excommunication ; but  he  has,  nevertheless, 
power  to  do  so,  if  he  be  commissioned  by  his  bishop 
to  excommunicate. 

Again,  it  is  urged  that  only  two  orders  were 
established  by  Our  Lord : one  being  that  of  the 
twelve  Apostles  represented  by  bishops;  the  other 
that  of  the  seventy-two  disciples,  represented  by 
priests  .exercising  the  pastoral  office.  If,  from  these 
premises,  it  be  argued  that  monks,  unless  they  be 
bishops  or  pastors,  have  not,  as  a matter  of  course, 


164 


THE  KELIGIOUS  STATE 


the  care  of  souls,  the  conclusion  is  perfectly  true. 
But,  if  it  be  maintained  that  religious  have  not 
power  to  preach,  or  to  hear  confessions,  even  with 
the  sanction  of  their  bishop,  the  conclusion  is  clearly 
false.  Eor  the  higher  the  dignity  of  any  man,  the 
greater  is  his  power  (XVI.  quaest.  I.  Sunt  non- 
nulli).  Hence,  if  secular  priests,  not  engaged  in 
pastoral  work,  can,  with  the  permission  of  a bishop, 
discharge  these  functions,  religious  are  certainly 
better  entitled  to  do  so,  if  they  have  the  same 
commission. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  to  say  these  things  in  answer 
to  those  who  strive  to  detract  from  the  perfection 
of  religious  life.  Nevertheless,  I abstain  from  re- 
proaches. For,  “ he  that  uttereth  reproach  is  foolish” 
(Prov.  x.  18),  and  “ all  fools  are  meddling  with  re- 
proaches ” (Prov.  xx.  3).  If  anyone  desire  to  send 
me  a reply,  his  words  will  be  very  welcome  to  me. 
Eor  the  surest  way  to  elucidate  truth  and  to  con- 
found error  is  by  confuting  the  arguments  brought 
against  the  truth.  Solomon  says,  “ Iron  sharpeneth 
iron,  so  a man  sharpeneth  the  countenance  of  a 
friend  ” (Prov.  xxvii.  17). 

And  may  the  Lord  God,  blessed  for  ever,  judge 
between  us  and  them.  Amen. 


INDEX 


Active  life,  the,  138 
Anointing  of  Bishops,  116,127, 
150 

— of  Kings,  128,  150 
Archdeacons,  122,  130 

Benedict,  St.,  162 
Bishops  may  enter  religion,  132, 
158 

— and  regnlars,  141,  157 

— and  Priests,  difference  of 

state,  111-136 

— in  a state  of  perfection,  87 

— order  of,  136,  151 

— state  of,  more  sacred  than 

that  of  religious,  92,  136 

— state  of,  not  to  be  desired,  104 

— objection  to  foregoing  re- 

futed, 96 

Blessed,  the,  in  heaven,  11 

Canon  Law,  50  note 
Charity.  See  Love 
Chastity,  aids  to,  32 

— counsel  of  Jesus  Christ,  26 

— errors  concerning,  54 

— religious,  26,  140 
Confessions,  religious  may  hear, 

161 

Contemplative  life,  the,  138 


Counsels  of  perfection  essential 
to  religious  life,  19,  26 

daily  means  to  end  of 

religious  life,  38,  99 
— objections  against,  22,  30 

Decretals.  See  Canon  Law. 
Enemies,  love  of,  74 
Gratian.  See  Canon  Law. 
Holocaust  of  religious,  49 
Idleness,  36 

Jovinian,  error  of,  54 
Jurisdiction,  151,  161,  163 

Love  of  God  as  it  exists  in 
God  Himself,  10,  11  note 

a counsel  of  perfection, 

17 

degrees  of,  11 

end  of  religious  life,  1, 

17 

necessary  for  salva- 
tion, 15 

Love  of  enemies,  74 
Love  of  neighbour,  character- 
istics of,  67,  73 

essential  to  religious  life, 

8,  73 

necessary  for  salvation,  66 


165 


166 


INDEX 


Martyrs,  44,  143 
Matrimony  impediment  to  en- 
tering religion,  130,  154 

— renunciation  of,  26 

— rite  of,  148 

Neighbour,  love  of.  See  Love. 

— meaning  of,  76 

— sacrifice  for,  77 
Obedience,  vow  of,  41,  51 

objections  ansAvered,  53 

Occasions  of  sin,  37 
Perfection,  end  of  religious  life, 

8,  87 

— means  of,  48 

— state  of,  84,  141 

— Avbat  is  it  ? 5,  8 

— of  episcopal  state,  87,  92 

— of  priestly  office,  111-159 
Poverty,  counsel  of  Jesus  Christ, 

19 

— legacy  of  Jesus  Christ,  20 

— vow  of,  21 

— objections  refuted,  53 
Prayer,  35 

Priests,  dependence  on  bishops, 
145,  150 

— may  enter  religion,  154,  156 

— not  in  state  of  perfection, 

111-159 


Priests,  perfection  of  office,  111, 
114 

— Sacrifices  of,  124 

Religion,  meaning  of,  48  note 
Religious,  meaning  of,  48  note 
Renunciation  of  a religious,  48 

Scripture,  Holy,  love  of,  35 
Secularisation  of  religious,  155 
Self-denial,  32,  38,  41 
Souls,  cure  of,  95,  111  et  seq. 

— religious  may  have  cure  of, 

113,  138,  160 

State,  meaning  of,  84,  114,  122, 
134,  140 

— passing  from  one  to  another, 

153 

Study,  duty  of  religious,  160 

Teach,  religious  are  allowed  to, 
161 

Vigilantius,  error  of,  52 
Yows,  advantages  of,  45,  53 

— imply  freedom,  45 

— obligation  of,  46,  153,  155 

— objections  against,  53,  61 

— of  religious,  48,  140 

Women,  37 

Zeal  for  souls,  126,  144 


< 


PLYMOUTH 

WILLIAM  BRENDON  AND  SON,  PRINTERS 


JtHMt 

'T**’  h Z'  i ^LIW 

Date  Due 

r a 

/ V /.  ;! 

JHL24 :61 

* „ . 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

9031 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


01182451  3 


125276 


v\~*CL4\'‘ 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a 
shorter  period  is  specified. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at 
the  circulation  desk  for  assistance. 


